Tatyana Jones Ap GOPO
4 views | +0 today
Follow
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by Tatyana Jones from Government and Economics
Scoop.it!

Ari Fleischer: Want to Fight Income Inequality? Get Married

Ari Fleischer: Want to Fight Income Inequality? Get Married | Tatyana Jones Ap GOPO | Scoop.it
In The Wall Street Journal, Ari Fleischer writes that in families headed by married couples, the poverty level in 2012 was just 7.5%. Those with a single mother: 33.9%.

Via Joel Leagans
Tatyana Jones's insight:

I don't agree that getting married is the key to  fighting income inequality, if a fast food worker and a Cashier get married, does it mean that their children are automatically better off because they have too parents? I think that the real issue is not single parents, but that we as Americans lack motivation. The fact that married parents produce more successful children is simply because of the fact that have a higher chance of being motivated.

more...
Tiffany Wang- AP Gov's comment, February 8, 2014 11:56 PM
I would agree that in general households headed by a married couple do make more than single parent households, but there are so many contributing factors to poverty. Getting married just to get married is not going to solve anything. If the US is truly serious about getting rid of poverty need to focus on more important factors such as education.
nazlia's comment, February 17, 2014 2:34 PM
I dont agree that children raised in families with both parents are more successful than those raised with one because in some cases one of the parents may be disruptive and unstable causing difficulty for the child. But otherwise, children raised in families concluding of two parents that are loving, stable, and supportive may be more successful and better prepared than children raised with only one parent.
Jiahao Chen's comment, February 17, 2014 3:03 PM
"In families headed by married couples, the poverty level in 2012 was just 7.5%. Those with a single mother: 33.9%." l mean this number really shock me, but this is such true number that tells us the difference between those married family and single family. those numbers are actually reasonable, when people are getting married, there are at least two people are making money, i assume, even more than two, this increased the house total income, and house demands and income supply will be dfependable with the family situation. But for a single family, only at least adult would have income and needs to support the whole family, once the only person supporting the family lost the lost or anything happen to him or her, life sucks, so hard to survive and becomes imaginary poor. I mean married is definitely a way to solve the problem, but its not the only way. We are not willing to equility income by getting married, this is not what we want. Work hard, making money, be good person, not just get married.
Rescooped by Tatyana Jones from Government and Economics
Scoop.it!

Hillary's question: not if, but how

Hillary's question: not if, but how | Tatyana Jones Ap GOPO | Scoop.it
Let’s be clear about this much: no matter what the soothsayers on cable TV tell you, Hillary Clinton is no more likely to clear the Democratic field and avoid a primary in 2016 than Dennis Rodman is to become her secretary of state. Walter Mondale couldn’t pull that off in 1984, and Al Gore couldn’t do it in 2000, and the conditions for Washington-anointed frontrunners have only gotten exponentially harder since then.

Via Joel Leagans
Tatyana Jones's insight:

I agree with the statement that if Hilary Clinton does decide to run for president she should try to do things differently this time. If not for the reason's listed in the article but for the fact that it didn't exactly work out last time in her favor. Challenging what people is already upset about is a good path because it gets peoples attention and makes them want to help make that type of change happen.

more...
Tiffany Wang- AP Gov's comment, February 16, 2014 7:28 PM
There is no doubt that people want Hilary to run in 2016. If she decides to run for President she will have to change her campaign tactics. This time she should employ a more grassroots campaign, à la Obama '08/'10. She also needs to take a stand on important issues because that makes her seem more authentic.
Katherine Banks's comment, February 16, 2014 11:25 PM
this article like it's title is saying not "if" Hilary runs but "when" she runs if she wants to really get the voters in her court she'll need to change up her game. Democrats and their agendas have changed since when she first attempted to run for president, she'll need to do something like distance herself from the big banks and businesses before the election or it will be to late to cut ties. As the article states she needs to incorporate traditional ideals with the changes of today to win the election in 2016.
Olivia LaPadula's comment, February 17, 2014 4:28 PM
I don't like how this article calls Hillary a "celebrated stateswoman" because the idea of a female presidents strikes up a lot more excitement than anything else (it worked pretty well for Sarah Palin with the idea of the first female vice president until she open her mouth). Hillary Clinton is smart enough to know how to run in the 2016 election, she needs to cover her ground now with wall street buddies and washington big shots so when election time comes around it'll be her time to shine on the grass roots campaign. To say Hillary Clinton doesn't know what she's doing is such an understatement because our future first lady knows that excited and amazing support that will generated from women when she decides to run. Don't underestimate her because Clinton has be gunning for the presidential seat for a very long time and she's not going to lose it this time.
Scooped by Tatyana Jones
Scoop.it!

10 ways a government shutdown would affect your daily life

10 ways a government shutdown would affect your daily life | Tatyana Jones Ap GOPO | Scoop.it
10 ways a government shutdown would affect your daily life.
Tatyana Jones's insight:

Many times when the goverenment is going through problems, we tend think that things that happen in  the federal government stays in the federal government. This article shows that the shutdown would directly effect what us as americans take for granted. The shutdown can also effect the economy that is just begining to bloom because the police wouldn't be getting paid.

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Tatyana Jones from Government and Economics
Scoop.it!

Obama's No. 1 Problem

Obama's No. 1 Problem | Tatyana Jones Ap GOPO | Scoop.it
President Obama has a problem: One day he’s talking about economic inequality, the next day school reform, or immigration reform, or something else entirely.

Via Joel Leagans
Tatyana Jones's insight:

I agree with the author, President Obama not choosing to focus on one topic but instead focusing on many could in the long run result in him not being to achieve any of his goals. When trying to do many things at once you tend to over look certain details of what you are doing, so even if he can pull off some of what he promises he would, whose to say that it'll be effective and lasting.

more...
Niti Desai's comment, January 31, 2014 1:56 AM
Problems will always be present. Knowing how to make the best decisions for the country is not always easy, but the President of the US has that job and needs to fulfill it. While I agree that multiple "priorities" cannot exist, I also believe that the President has a boat load of pressure that he must handle every day. How can he decide which of the major issues are "greater?" I find it understandable that Obama wants to focus on many different problems throughout our country. Although, there are times when a true priority must be established, and that's when the art of making decisions comes into play.
Tianna Kelly's curator insight, February 3, 2014 10:33 AM

Greg McKeown argues that Obama's lack of focus on a specific a national issue is a problem in the President's mentality, and that Obama must pinpoint a specific issue to fix during 2014. I disagree with the author's stance. With so many pressing issues facing our nation, why must we decide to resolve only one? If we decide to focus on social equality, what happens to our relationships with foreign nations? If we choose to focus on improving our military, how will the economic crisis in our country be resolved? As leader of a nation, the President cannot simply choose which issues to fix and which to ignore; he must treat all issues as matters in need of resolution. Certainly, some issues take "priority" over others, as stated by McKeown, yet the goal of a president is to resolve all of the issues of his nation, or at least attempt to. Next, the author puts forth the opinion that we must choose which initiatives to reject. Surely, not everything may be achived, but shouldn't we at least try? With McKeown's proposal, millions of Americans would receive the proverbial short end of the stick when deciding which issues to tackle.

Stephanie Yard's comment, April 3, 2014 9:56 AM
“There’s no way Obama, or his chief of Staff Denis McDounough, for that matter, can juggle all of these priorities successfully” suggests a valid point. Obama is trying to fix too many “problems’ when he should be honing in on a couple problems at a time. Obama is trying to fix economic inequality, education, immigration reform, etc. all at the same time. The author points out a very valid point when he states “he has to pick one and stick with it. That’s how the most effective leaders get things done”. It’s better to focus on one detail, or problem at a time and avoid distractions. When defining the “priority” it’s strange how priority is used as priority rather than priorities. It’s impossible for everything to be a priority.
Scooped by Tatyana Jones
Scoop.it!

11 facts about the Affordable Care Act

11 facts about the Affordable Care Act | Tatyana Jones Ap GOPO | Scoop.it
There remains a fair amount of confusion about what is and isn't in the Affordable Care Act.
Tatyana Jones's insight:

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that Obamacare will reduce the federal deficit by $210 billion over the next decade. The law is expected to save about $1 trillion over its second decade

more...
No comment yet.