Mary - BHS GOPO
3 views | +0 today
Follow
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by Mary Rofaeil from AP U.S. Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

Due by 4/25--Here's What You Need to Know About the President's 2015 Budget

Due by 4/25--Here's What You Need to Know About the President's 2015 Budget | Mary - BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
Here's how President Obama's budget would grow our economy and expand #OpportunityForAll → http://go.wh.gov/ctxpdE

Via Kelly Grossman
Mary Rofaeil's insight:

The reason of OMB Deputy Director Brian Deese gives for the rapid rate of decline in the deficit is the decline in the growth of the health care costs.

The president’s proposed budget for 2015 would continue to lower future deficits by decreasing the rate of healthcare costs and putting the money more into effective projects that help the economy.

The president’s budget tries to build on Congress’s effort to compromise in the allocation of discretionary spending by decreasing defense. He wants to improve things projects that will improve our economy and nation, like improving education.

A pro of this budget proposal is lowering the deficit and improving education. A con would be some people would be upset by his proposal and will no longer support him. Also, less people will benefit by healthcare.

more...
Miranda Rae Garcia's curator insight, April 28, 2014 6:53 PM

1.) We are experiencing a historic reduction in the rate of growth of healthcare costs, and that is why there is a rapid rate of decline in the deficit. 2.) The president's proposed budget would put us on the green part of his graph It would lower future deficits. 3.) Discretionary spending is the money that congress is supposed to allocate and approve where it goes. The president tries to build off of this effort while showing how he would invest in the future and things that would help the economy grow. The president tries to build off of this effort because it provides some stability for economy. One component of this initiative would be early learning, and adding slots for children around the country. 4.) Pros of this budget proposal would be helping early learning and using money to find a cure for cancer and things like that. A con would be spending all of that money and then there not being a positive outcome.

Katie Nissen's curator insight, April 29, 2014 8:00 PM

1. due to the rate of reduction in healthcare costs

2.  Lower deficits because of policies of health care costs will allow the economy to grow

3. it set limits allowing stability for his budget. He uses that to invest in things that could potentially allow the economy to grow. Early learning which is education would allows for new opportunities

4. Some pros are the ability for the both sides come together to decide on  the economy, unfortunately the President could invest in the wrong programs which will waste resources. 

Brooklyn Ward's curator insight, September 25, 2015 7:55 AM

1.The reason for the decline in the deficit is the lower spending by the public on healthcare.

2.By continuing to add more constraints on healthcare cost, the deficit  will continue to decrease.

3.The President is making compromises with congress (mostly republicans) by setting aside half the discretionary fund for military spending.

4. Pros: more money will be invested in two things government should be funding: schools and the military

Cons: the question of can they really close all the loopholes in the tax codes, and then there's the issue that the government funded healthcare doubled in cost this past year (even when the congressional budget office estimated it would decrease by nearly 30%) and the cost is estimated to nearly double again by 2016 reaching almost $120 billion.

Rescooped by Mary Rofaeil from AP U.S. Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

Due by 4/11-Obama going it alone, pressing ahead on reforms for federal contractors with executive orders

Due by 4/11-Obama going it alone, pressing ahead on reforms for federal contractors with executive orders | Mary - BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
President pushing contractor changes with executive orders, moving without help from Congress

Via Kelly Grossman
Mary Rofaeil's insight:

Obama is to sign an executive order Tuesday barring federal contractors from retaliating against employees who discuss their pay with each other. The order is similar to language in a Senate bill aimed at closing a pay gap between men and women. At the same time, executive orders show the limits of his ambition when he does not have the support of Congress for his initiatives. Republicans say Obama is pushing his executive powers too far and should do more to work with Congress. His new executive orders are sure to lead to criticism that he is placing an undue burden on companies and increasing their costs. What is being levied against his executive orders is that orders create a two-tiered system in which rules apply to federal contractors but not to other employers. Those contractors, knowing that their business relies on the government, are less likely to put up a fight, he said. The White House has resisted pressure from gay rights advocates who want Obama to sign an anti-discrimination executive order that would protect gays and lesbians working for federal contractors. The White House wants the House to approve a Senate-passed bill extending those protections to all Americans. The Obama administration are hesitant to address this area because they do not want to lose the public’s support or certain groups.

more...
Shelby Mench's curator insight, April 15, 2014 2:39 PM

1.)    Why has President Obama chosen to enact an executive order regarding pay of federal employees?

President Obama has chosen to enact an executive order regarding the pay of federal employees because he has not been able to get the support that he needs from Congress.

2.)    What are the limitations on Obama’s executive order and executive orders in general?

However there are certain limitations on Obama’s executive order and executive orders in general such as the fact that they can be put into a trial for legality and it can create a division with congress when Obama really needs them to back him!

3.)    What criticism is being levied against presidents’ use of executive orders? What is the criticism of this specific executive order?

There is criticism that is being levied against the president’s use of executive orders such as the point that Obama needs to put forward a better effort to work with congress and to step back and review the stress he is placing on other companies financially.

4.)    What policy area has the White House chosen not to address with executive orders?

There is the policy of gay rights which The White House has chosen not to address using executive orders.

5.)    Why might the Obama administration be hesitant to address this area?

The Obama administration might be hesitant to address the area because Obama does not want to lose any of the public’s support! He is hoping that the Senate will pass a bill and will be able to protect all Americans rather than just a few.

Courtney OConnor's curator insight, April 15, 2014 6:57 PM

I was absent Wednesday-Friday with no access to computer/ internet.

 

President Obama has chosen to enact an executive order due to complications compromising with Congress. This executive order would prevent contractors from retaliating against employees discussing their pay as well as require the Labor Department to require contractors to provide data regarding pay based on race and gender. His limitations are that his order may be challenged and deemed unlawful by Congress. There is criticism that President Obama may be stepping out of line by not agreeing with Congress about this decision, and that he's using his power too far. Also, Federal Contractors believe that releasing this data would call for an increase in lawsuits and the creation of a two tier system. The White House has not chosen to deal with the agenda that would protect gays and lesbians working for these Federal Contractors. He might be hesitant to address this issue due to the growing support of protection of gays and lesbians in Congress as it is and further provocation to Congress would be harmful for his administration.

Katie Nissen's curator insight, April 17, 2014 5:40 AM

President Barack Obama chosen to put in place an executive order so he can control more of the economy by keeping federal contractors from hurting employees who would like a raise. His executive order was denied by congress. The order might be considered unlawful. Republicans know that he is using his power to much and needs to be working with congress. People know that his executive order will give a burden to companies and hurt their inflow of money. The white house has not said anything about protecting gays and lesbians working from federal contractors. The white house’s goal is to spread protection to all Americans. 

Scooped by Mary Rofaeil
Scoop.it!

Does your vote count? The Electoral College explained - Christina Greer - YouTube

View full lesson: http://ed.ted.com/lessons/does-your-vote-count-the-electoral-college-explained-christina-greer You vote, but then what? Discover how your i...
Mary Rofaeil's insight:

The founding fathers established the Electoral College in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. Also, they wanted the president to be selected by the nation’s elite, not directly by the people. In Article two, section one, clause two, stats how many electors a state can have.

The common strategy to get to 270 is to get the bigger states who have more electors and it is between the Democrats and the Republicans. In swing states, there is no single candidate that dominates and theses states are targets for political parties. In close elections, these states have be the answer to who will sin, for example the 2000 election. A safe state is when a strong support that he can assume that he will win the state’s votes.

When none of the candidates receives a majority of the Electoral College vote then the election is thrown into the House of Representative, which must chooses from among the top three electoral vote winners.

In the 2000 election, Al Gore won the popular vote, but George Bush won the electoral vote and was elected president, therefore people started questioning the Electoral College. Many people felt that the electoral college displace the will of the people. Also, the Electoral College favored the larger states over the smaller states because larger states have more electors therefore larger states have more influence in the election.

I am not satisfied with the current system because I believe that not every vote counts. For example in Strong Republican states like Texas, people who vote democrats don’t really count because Texas will always vote Republic. Also, smaller states don’t have as much influence as larger states in the presidential elections because they have less electors. Therefore, people in smaller are least likely to vote. Also, swing states can have more advantage because some elections, their vote can be the difference of election.

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Mary Rofaeil from AP U.S. Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

Due by 2/20: Texan Hispanics Tilt Democratic, but State Likely to Stay Red

Due by 2/20: Texan Hispanics Tilt Democratic, but State Likely to Stay Red | Mary - BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
Texas remains a Republican-leaning state because its white residents are becoming increasingly Republican and its large Hispanic population, though solidly Democratic, is less so than Hispanics nationally.

Via Kelly Grossman
Mary Rofaeil's insight:

The democrats are hopeful for realignment because the Hispanics are more in numbers and therefore have more say in the state. This is minority majority because there are more Hispanics than whites.

The number of Republicans has rose from 19 to 33 percent while the percentage of those who are democrats declined from 48 to 34. The number of independents stayed consistent at 33 percent.

Gallup suggests that current situation is unlikely to result in party realignment in the near future because there are less Hispanics that are participating in voting. Also, more whites are voting than Hispanics making them lead in the state as republicans.

To ensure a low sampling error in this poll there was a large confidence level. Also, the polls were taken randomly by phone and were spoken in either Spanish or English depending on the receiver. 

more...
Shelby Payton Salkar's comment, March 27, 2014 10:22 AM
1. Democrats are looking forward that with an increase in Hispanic pop. the state may have enough Democratic votes to turn the state blue. Generally speaking, Hispanics are Democratic. As more minorities flock to America, whites are becoming a minority and may lose their typical Republican hold in Texas.<br>2. Whites are very Republican, while their Hispanic friends are mostly Democratic. In terms of the rest of the country, however, the Hispanics in Texas have more Republicans than elsewhere.
Shelby Payton Salkar's comment, March 27, 2014 10:29 AM
3 Gallup believes that Texas will not experience political realignment, the reason being Texas Hispanics are more likely not to vote. Although they hold opinions, but their lack of hands on political participation prevents Texas from being a blue state.<br> <br>4. The poll has a 1% error because the pollers checked to see if half of the surveys over cell and the other half over landline calls and then the surveyed at random..then there is the spanish polling,
Jessica Markle's curator insight, April 15, 2014 12:15 AM

The Democrats are slowly taking over texas because the minorities in texas are growing in numbers and the majority of the minorities fully support the Democrats. Though Texas is mostly Republican,  Democrats are hoping this population change will change texas into a Democratic state.  Keeping that in mind, many Hispanics are not registering to vote and because of that the minorities aren't necessarily able to vote and represent themselves when the majority votes more than the minority. This is a prime example of how participation can change the outcome of an election. The data from this article was taken by random phone call surveys by an equal number in each group asked

Rescooped by Mary Rofaeil from AP U.S. Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

Due 4/18--Roberts Pulls Supreme Court to the Right Step by Step

Due 4/18--Roberts Pulls Supreme Court to the Right Step by Step | Mary - BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. may work slowly, but he has a long-term strategy for putting his mark on the Supreme Court.

Via Kelly Grossman
Mary Rofaeil's insight:

Conservatives have been consistently favored in Roberts’ court decisions. This is proven when he persuaded to liberal justices to join the part of his opinion about states on the expansion of Medicare. Also, his court is considered the most pro-business court of modern era.

A precedent is how similar cases have been decided in the past. Roberts court largely made rulings based on precedent by being pro-business court and favoring mostly in business. However, the court has not made any new decisions, they only reinforced old decisions/rulings.

Strategies that the president might pursue to see greater success in the court could be to get the public’s attention toward issues he feels are important and he wants to change or improve. Also, he could appoint more judges to the court who are on his side and would agree with his rulings and ideas.

Justice Kennedy is considered the swing on the court because he is the tie breaker between the four liberals and the four conservatives.

There was no discernible bias in the way this article was written because the author represented both sides of the argument and he took account of other peoples opinions including conservatives and liberals.

more...
Jorge Lopez0408's curator insight, April 20, 2014 8:47 PM

1. Who/what has been consistently favored in Roberts court decisions? Cite evidence to support your answer. The liberals since the liberal party is the majority than the conservative in the judicial court ruling over every conservative ruling of even small case. 

2. What is precedent and in what ways has the Roberts court largely made rulings based on precedent? Precedent is the previous establishment of the previous case which affects the choice of the cases in the future. The rulings have gone towards the liberal sides making rules about certain laws that liberal party congress member rule upon to make of law. 

3. What strategy(ies) might the President pursue to see greater success in the Court? The strategy that the president may use would be the media to cover the choices of the people to go to certain sides of the choices that the judicial branch makes upon the laws to be passed by the rule of four. 

4. Which Justice is considered the “swing vote” on the court and why? Justice Kennedy is the "swing vote" because there is already a 4 to 4 ratio of the conservative and liberal which Kennedy makes the 6 to 6 judicial vote.

5.Is there discernible bias in the way this article was written? Why, or why not? The article was written in the view of a conservative to help decrease the help many liberals receive in their vote to the upcoming laws that are against many of Obama's choices of laws that he will or will not veto against the court ruling. 

Shelby Mench's curator insight, April 22, 2014 9:46 AM

1.)  Who/what has been consistently favored in Roberts court decisions? Cite evidence to support your answer.

 

            In Roberts court decisions conservatives have been favored and he has shown a large attachment to things which he feels are planting new seeds in the justices and discusses them as a new plant.

 

2. What is precedent and in what ways has the Roberts court largely made rulings based on precedent?

 

          A precedent is when an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances. The Roberts court has largely made rulings based on precedent which favor businesses and which choose to push forward older laws.

 

3. What strategy(ies) might the President pursue to see greater success in the Court?

 

            The President might pursue attempting to persuade the justices on issues with a more liberal view. This would help as the Roberts court takes the extra votes in order to gain their votes. This would help the President to see greater success in the court.

 

4. Which Justice is considered the “swing vote” on the court and why?

            The Justice which would be considered the “swing vote” in the court would be Kennedy because he tends to vote both ways and he is typically the deciding vote.

 

5. Is there discernible bias in the way this article was written? Why, or why not?

 

            No there is no discernible bias in the way this article was written because it presents the facts and doesn’t bring in much of an opinion while giving information on both sides instead of only one.

Jessica Markle's curator insight, April 24, 2014 6:14 PM

1. Conservatives have been constantly favored in Roberts’ court decisions because he is constantly persuading the court’s more liberal justices to pass different laws in the polarized system.

2. Precedent is when a court uses a previous case to evaluate the outcome of a current case. Roberts court mainly deals with this when the case involves businesses.

3. In order for the president to gain more support for Congress, he will need to gain support from the opposing political party by perhaps letting them win smaller battles and compromising.

4. Justice Kennedy is considered the "swing vote" because he has voted for both the conservatives and liberals and he is unpredictable.

5. There is always bias in articles, but this article doesn't necessarily have that much. It sheds light on the views of both conservative and liberals.

Rescooped by Mary Rofaeil from AP U.S. Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

Senate Balks at Obama Pick for Surgeon General

Senate Balks at Obama Pick for Surgeon General | Mary - BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
The White House is considering putting off a Senate vote on Dr. Vivek H. Murthy, who has come under criticism from the National Rifle Association, or withdrawing the nomination altogether.

Via Kelly Grossman
Mary Rofaeil's insight:

1. The N.R.A. is a powerful political force in many of the states where Democrats face their greatest threats this year in efforts to keep control of the Senate. The group has embarked on an aggressive campaign to rally its millions of members against Dr. Murthy. The latest effort came on Friday evening when the N.R.A. sent a “grass-roots alert” to millions of email subscribers, imploring them to “contact your senators and ask them to oppose confirmation of President Obama’s radically antigun nominee.” The concern that Dr. Murthy is a strong leader and can persuade people.

2. The N.R.A. has said it will “score” any confirmation vote — meaning that voting yes would negatively affect a senator’s annual rating from the group. Although vote for no will get angry letters and lose reelections. This is not an idle concern for senators like Mr. Begich, Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and John Walsh of Montana — all Democrats who represent states where opposition from the N.R.A. could mean the difference in a close race. The White House could probably only afford to lose no more than six Democrats in the vote on Dr. Murthy because Republicans are not likely to provide much support.

3. The president appoints the nominees.

4. The white house should be more focused on having candidates who are biased toward political policies and more focused on medical issues. The White House learned to focus more on nominating candidates who people favor and who are focused on their job and interest.

more...
luke jester's curator insight, April 11, 2014 6:14 PM

1. They  sent out a "grass roots alert" to millions of people so they would tell their senators to not vote for the President's nominee . They don't like the fact that the nominee is extremely against guns.

2. democrats may lose control of the Senate because Senators are voting differently then they normally would because of the NRA .

3. The President chooses the positions of people.

4. they could hold Obama's vote for surgeon general or take out the nomination from the position. they need balance nominees in order to have support from both parties.

Jessica Markle's curator insight, April 11, 2014 9:28 PM

The NRA is influencing members of congress by personally emailing the voters and trying to rally members against the Surgeon General because they don't agree with his views on gun control and many other issues. The senators reelection is at stake and if they vote with gun control, they will lose the support of the NRA. From this incident, the White House should definitely learn to choose a more fitting person to represent, one that preferably agrees with the policies of the NRA.The white house learned to approach nominations differently in order to recieve better feedback

Lauren Sargent's curator insight, April 14, 2014 10:38 PM
The NRA is concerned about the appointment of nominee Murthy because he is actively against guns. They are going directly to citizens addressing them about the nominee and asking their opinion and going to senate, trying to get the nominee removed. The NRA are concerned that if the nominee is appointed, the gun-bans in the nation will go up, decreasing their value.The Senate is trying to maintain democratic leadership by listening to their constituents which, in states such as Alaska, Louisiana, and Arkansas, are opposed to gun-banning, which puts them against the nominee.The White House try to choose candidates who will help keep a mostly equal view on arguments and won’t anger any interest groups, such as the NRA, so there won’t be a lack of executive control or support.The White House should consider what is really good for the nation and what candidates are right for the job, rather than trying to please everyone. It is impossible, especially in politics, to please everyone, so they should try to think about what the candidate can offer to the executive process and what they can possibly change. The White House learned that they tend to overestimate democratic support and lean more toward their constituents than the rest of the nation.
Rescooped by Mary Rofaeil from AP U.S. Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

Due by 2/24: Americans' Satisfaction With Economy Sours Most Since 2001

Due by 2/24: Americans' Satisfaction With Economy Sours Most Since 2001 | Mary - BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
More Americans today are satisfied with where the nation stands on acceptance of gays and lesbians, federal taxes, and healthcare availability than were satisfied in 2001. But Americans' satisfaction with the economy has declined.

Via Kelly Grossman
Mary Rofaeil's insight:

Yes because different events (for example 9/11 and the recession in 2008) have changed people’s opinions towards the economy and have been upset with the economy and its actions.

Yes this matches the textbook because Republicans tend to be conservatives and Democrats tend to liberals. Republicans care more about the environment while democrats are more concerned about affordable health care and the nation’s economy. Also, both parties are concerned about quality of health care and education.

Republicans are more concerned about laws towards the environment, strict gun controls, and dealing more with the homeless while the democrats are more concerned about affordable health care, level of immigration, nation’s economy, and military strengths.

The sampling error means that there’s 4% confidence level. This means that the results will vary causing some people to rethink their interceptions while others think that 4% is insignificant.

more...
Hannah Larson's curator insight, February 25, 2014 9:17 AM

1. The historical events of the period have greatly affected the results of this poll. 9/11 and the war in Iraq and Afghanistan have changed American approval of our standing in the world and our foreign affairs for the worse. The end of the dot com boom and the beginning of the 2008-2009 recession significantly alterered people's views of the economy. They now disapprove of the state of the economy significantly  more than in the past.

2. For the most part these results coincide with democratic and republican views. Republicans show more approval of the state of the environment and gun policy while Democrats show more approval of social policies such as the legalization of gay marriage and Social Security and Welfare programs. I found it interesting that the two parties' approval of many issues such as quality of public education and quality of medical care are almost the same. Republicans show less concern for the environment and they do not support stricter gun laws, so these approval ratings make sense. Democrats endorse more support of scoial issuessuch as gay marriage and more government sponsored programs for the people to use. Their support of gay marriage and socil securoty and welfare makes sense. I believe both parties share the same approval or dissaproval on some issues because most people are moderate but call themselves a democrat or republican. Most take a republican view on most things and a democratic on others or vice versa.

3. Democrats will more likely favor policies such as the affordable health care act and support social welfare programs.Republicans will favor policies that involve less government control such as tax cuts and less strict gun laws.

4. This means that the data taken could be a lot closer than what is seen. Issues where the ratings seperated by 8% could lead to actual results of the same approval rating. This completely changes the readers' view on data taken over energy policies and federal taxes. Some of the data is so close that when the percentage error is taken into acoount, democrats may have more approval of an issue than republicans or vice versa. This can be seen in data taken for control of crime, quality of medical care, and race relations.

Jorge Lopez0408's curator insight, April 10, 2014 1:14 PM
Kelly Grossman's insight:

Rescoop to your own page and write a reflection on the reading in which you answer the following questions  - by class time on Monday, 2/24!

1. The article explains why Gallup chose a 13-year comparison. Do the historical events of this period explain the changes in public opinion? Why or why not? Yes it does since the change of ideas and problems to change first. The the shift in problems for others have shifted from governmental taxation to Gay and Lesbian rights of marriage.

2. Examine the chart comparing Democrats' and Republicans' levels of satisfaction. Do these results coincide with your expectations (based on the textbooks' depiction of American liberalism and conservatism)? Why or why not? Yes they do since the republicans have their own likes and dislikes and vice-versa, for the democrats. The changes and laws placed that are new will effect the mind shifts of the people of the certain party that would affect their future.

3. Based on these results, which public policy changes are likely to be supported by each party? The Military and terrorist defensive increased by both parties to lessen the fear of their lives. The future and safety of the country is their first priority.

4. The sampling error for this poll is +/- 4%. What does this mean, and how might it impact your interpretation of the data presented? It isn't too much of a sampling error that affects the data by the error. The 4% doesn't effect much of the side i believe in as i see the data well built in how the percentage of the both parties was taken.

Jessica Markle's curator insight, April 15, 2014 12:04 AM

Yes, because ever since the economic downturn and 9/11 Americans have altered their views towards the economy and has lost confidence in the government and its policies.

Yes, because Democrats seem to be more for liberalism while Republicans are concerned lean towards conservatism.

Republicans would strengthen the economy, set immigration laws, and limit health care while Democrats would set strict gun regulations and preserve the economy.

It means that there is a possibility of a small percent error. However, it has no impact on the major interpretation of each side for each topic.