BHS GOPO
8 views | +0 today
Follow
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scooped by Zachary Oretsky
Scoop.it!

BY 10/15 -- 32 Republicans Who Caused the Government Shutdown

BY 10/15 -- 32 Republicans Who Caused the Government Shutdown | BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
Meet the House conservative hardliners.

 

Rescoop, read, include a list of those from Texas

 

Zachary Oretsky's insight:

This article blames these Republicans for the government. It gives a background of each represenative as well as a there thoughts about Obamacare and the shutdown. A number of them represent Texas and many of them are from the south. It seems like this article is trying to throw these members under the bus.

more...
Tianna Kelly's curator insight, October 24, 2013 6:16 PM

This article details a list of Congressional members responsible for this month's government shutdown. A shocking (or perhaps not so shocking) number of these legislators hailed from Texas- these include John Culberson, John Carter, Ted Cruz, and Louis Gohmery. Not at all shockingly, nearly all of those considered responsible for the shutdown are members of the Republican party. Nominally, these "hardliners" ars fighting against an unjust law, but fail to consider those whose lives they ruin with their ideological struggle. 

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 7:01 PM

The small group of 32 Republicans shut down the government, refusing to support any resolution to fund the government that didn't defund Obamacare. Also, the article lists the 32 Republicans and quotes them about the government shutdown. I think that the republicans should be a little more open-minded and more willing to compromise. Those from Texas are John Carter, Randy Neugebauer, John Culberson, Steve Stockman, Louie Gohmert, and Randy Weber. 

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 18, 2014 1:17 PM

This article sheds light on the 32 conservatives who are blamed for the shutdown simply because they didn't support the funding of a government that didn't defund Obamacare. Instead of informing us about the actual crisis, they biasedly stick quotes from each conservative and place blame on Republicans for the shut down.

Rescooped by Zachary Oretsky from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

BY 10/15 --CNBC’s Andrew Ross Sorkin explains the debt ceiling

BY 10/15  --CNBC’s Andrew Ross Sorkin explains the debt ceiling | BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
Video on msnbc.com: NBC’s Kate Snow spoke with CNBC’s Andrew Ross Sorkin  about the debt ceiling and what happens if Congress fails to raise that limit so the government can borrow more money to pay its bills...

Via Teresa Herrin
Zachary Oretsky's insight:

This seems to be getting more serious than I thought. Sorkin is clearly trying to get the public's to realize that if Congress does'nt figure something out, the economy might take a nose dive. Citizens do not want to have to pay more taxes just because the government is in debt. 

more...
Tianna Kelly's curator insight, December 1, 2013 9:30 PM

I am honestly befuddled by this entire predicament. Even after gathering an understanding of the debt ceiling and its impending deadline, I fail to understand why our country's elected officials, this country's highest legal authority, cannot come together and do what is best for those they represent, those who gave them their seats. 

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 7:21 PM

It seems that America has very little options, with all of them most likel going to spiral downhill. One question I would like answered is what does the government need to do to get to a point where it doesn't need to borrow money? I think that paying foreign nations back in small amounts would be best; borrowing more and raising the debt ceiling is what placed the goverment in this situation anyway. There are many other ways but I think that that would be the best way.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 18, 2014 12:43 PM

If we do not raise the debt ceiling, American citizens will experience an extreme loss of goods and services provided by the federal government. Then the government would have to decide if they want to pay back foriegn debtors (like China) and let Americans suffer, or supply goods and services to Americans and let the debt to countries increase until we do not have money yet. The states may have to step up and provide the services that the federal government can't.

Rescooped by Zachary Oretsky from News You Can Use - NO PINKSLIME
Scoop.it!

Obama: 'Raising the Debt Ceiling...Does Not Increase Our Debt,' Though It Has 'Over 100 Times' - Conservative Byte

Obama: 'Raising the Debt Ceiling...Does Not Increase Our Debt,' Though It Has 'Over 100 Times' - Conservative Byte | BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
Obama: 'Raising the Debt Ceiling...Does Not Increase Our Debt,' Though It Has 'Over 100 Times'

Via #BBBundyBlog #NOMORELIES Tom Woods #Activist Award #Scoopiteer >20,000 Sources >250K Connections http://goo.gl/ruHO3Q
Zachary Oretsky's insight:

Obama believes that raising the debt ceiling will not increase the national debt. Others are saying that because the lifting of the debt ceiling has pulled the nation further into debt in the past, it is just going to do the same thing.

 

I do not think it is a good idea to raise the debt ceiling. If it hasn't worked in the past, how can we guarantee that it will work now?

However, I do believe that our economy does rely on government spending, but the raising of the debt ceiling will prove to be effective.

more...
Mark Sam's curator insight, September 25, 2013 1:13 AM

Obama says that we have raised the debt ceiling 'over 100 times', but most of the time, debt only increases.  Does he not understand that?  He says that raising the debt ceiling is not increasing debt, but there is a much greater chance in increasing debt from raising the ceiling.  I believe we would be much better suited to use the amount of debates we're currently using on the debt ceiling to use on how to eliminate our debt all together.  Why talk about ways to spend more when we should talk about ways to spend less?

Brian Cohen's curator insight, September 25, 2013 3:52 PM

Does anybody understand what Obama is saying about the debt cieling? Even though it's been done over 100 times does not necessarily mean that it works. It has probably been used so many times because it gives the government more freedom to go further in debt instead of taking responsibility for the high debt and finding a solution for it. And I will just come out and say it, President Obama could not have been more wrong when he said that raising the debt ceiling doesn't raise the debt. The government is going to take advantage of the extra "leeway" given to them if the ceiling is increased. 

Jalyssa Martinez's curator insight, September 26, 2013 2:10 AM

Obama, you can keep saying that raising the debt ceiling does not mean we're increasing in debt, and if we're not increasing ind ebt, why must the debt celing limit keep rising? 

Rescooped by Zachary Oretsky from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

Sen. Ted Cruz: I Don't Think President Obama 'Has the Authority' to Order Syria Strike Without Congressional Approval

Sen. Ted Cruz: I Don't Think President Obama 'Has the Authority' to Order Syria Strike Without Congressional Approval | BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
Contradicting President Obama’s assertion, Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas said this morning on “This Week” that the president does not have the authority to order a military strike on Syria without Congressional approval.

Via Teresa Herrin
Zachary Oretsky's insight:

Just because Assad is not a threat to our national security does not mean should not launch an attck. Assad needs to be stopped, and if no one else will do it, we will. People like Assad need to be punished immediately. Making statements is not going to change Assad's mind. He obviously has no regard for human life. He needs to be punished and put down by force.

more...
Sammy Masri's curator insight, September 17, 2013 12:19 AM

Cruz spoke very well for the majority of the speech: he made a reasonable case about why an attack would not work. But he faltered on two points. One: The state of Texas, vast as though it may be, does not represent the United States. Two: It's almost become customary of Republicans to bring up Benghazi whenever possible. It happened, nothing short of a full-scale operation and the ability to see the future could have prevented it, let the American dead rest in peace.

 

Also, the longer you show the US not supporting innocent civilians, the more and more radical these "Islamic terrorists" will become. Cut to the chase - or in this case, a missile strike - and nip the thing in the bud before it grows too big.

Rachel Murphy's curator insight, October 2, 2013 8:20 PM

Cruz makes it clear that he does not approve of military action in Syria. He believes a strike would aid rebel forces with links to Al-Qaeda. The strike may weaken Assad, but it would only give rebel forces an opportunity to swoop in. His precautions with the attack are plausible. I like the point he made about how OUR US military is not Al-Qaeda's air force. They are here to defend the United States.

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 6:16 PM

This video shows how complicated this whole situation is, and I had no idea how opposed the public was to involvment in Syria. Is there is a way to reprimand him without a strike? War crimes need to be reprimanded, but does this mean we have to go to war? I was all for involvment, but now I'm really questioning whether that would be the right thing to do.

Rescooped by Zachary Oretsky from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

3: Roundtable: Crucial week for Obama - Video on NBCNews.com

3: Roundtable: Crucial week for Obama - Video on NBCNews.com | BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
Video on msnbc.com: A Meet the Press roundtable forecasts the pressure on this upcoming week for the president to make his case for intervention in the Syrian conflict.

Via Teresa Herrin
Zachary Oretsky's insight:

I definitely agree that turning to Congress was the right move. We need to show people how an effective democracy works and that as a nation, the people will make the important decision. I also believe that we need to take strong military action in order to make a statement about chemical weapons. If we do no show authority, crises like the one in Syria will continue and expand to a global scale.

more...
Melissa Aleman's curator insight, September 11, 2013 10:36 PM

Really enjoyed this video in the sense that it gave me more insight to what's going on and different points of view. Several points like the fact that innocent civilians will die on our watch because of the airstrike was one i especially liked because it made me think more deeply into why we shouldnt intervene. It's clear that this is a huge predicament that even the Round table finds difficult to choose a side in the sense that as a nation we are stuck on deciding whether to be or not to be the "world's policemen."

Daniel Guo's curator insight, September 11, 2013 11:49 PM

I think that Newt Gingrich brings up good points about why it's hard for the public to support an airstrike on Syria. I think that this dicussion is a fair representation of the current public opinion on the matter- nobody wants to directly support a strike; there is no clear right answer.

Rachel Murphy's curator insight, October 2, 2013 8:13 PM

All of the politicians here are hesitant about military strikes in Syria. because they aren't sure about the effect that it would cause. Newt Gingrich makes some excellent points about the importance of communication. I believe some action needs to be taken in Syria, but a strike would only unleash more problems for us. Syria's allies are too powerful. 

Scooped by Zachary Oretsky
Scoop.it!

US set for Syria strikes after Kerry says evidence of chemical attack ...

US set for Syria strikes after Kerry says evidence of chemical attack ... | BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
Secretary of state says US could not let Assad get away with chemical attack that White House said killed 1429 Syrians.
more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Zachary Oretsky from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

BY 10/15 -- Gerrymandering: the recipe for dysfunctional government?

BY 10/15 -- Gerrymandering: the recipe for dysfunctional government? | BHS GOPO | Scoop.it

Video on msnbc.com: The age-old practice of politicians re-drawing Congressional districts to find friendly voters, or, gerrymandering, has allowed members of the House of Representatives from both sides of the aisle to stay in power regardless of...


Via Teresa Herrin
Zachary Oretsky's insight:

This video is about the use of gerrymandering (drawing out districts to fvor an incumbents chances of being reelected) in our government. Even though redstricting is important in terms of monitoring the distribution of members from each party, I believe that representatives are using this method very selfishly. It is rediculous that representatives are choosing their voters, not the voters choosing their representatives.

more...
Mason Paul Lyman's curator insight, April 2, 2014 9:41 PM

1. The House redraws the congressional districts every 10 years on the census in an attempr to make the districts lend their support to whoever the current party majority is.

2. Gerrymandering allows incumbents to get reelected multiple times. 

3. Have a computerized, neutral program that would create districts based on geography and demography. A program such as this would make it more difficult for incumbents to get reelected.

4. Yes, there are. One party could earn more votes than another but still lose the election.

5. No because it is an unhonorable way to earn the respective benefits.

Jessica Markle's curator insight, April 12, 2014 2:09 PM

gerymandering is the act of redrawing a district and its has gotten its name from Albridge Garry who redrew a district in the beginning of our country in order for him to win a vote. The redrawing of the districts almost guarantees a win in voting because it allows the politicians to choose their voters. In the video, suggested possible solutions to gerrymandering would be to redraw district lines according to geography, demographics, and population density but it would cause a disruption in the current system and would make it very difficult for a representative to be reelected to a district that doesn't have the same advantages. Gerrymandering can be compared to the electoral college because these systems don't work in the favor of the public, or the majority vote because with the representatives picking the districts containing people they know will vote for them along with the electoral college being able to override the public vote, it has caused question in the democratic system of the United States.

Lauren Sargent's curator insight, April 17, 2014 9:47 PM

The term gerrymandering comes from an 1810 law that was created by Elbridge Gerry, Governor of Massachusetts, which repositioned and defined congressional districts based on population changes. After the law was passed, newspaper articles came out with pictures of the re-drawn districts in concerning shapes, such as a salamander. They linked the two words “salamander” and “Gerry” and called it gerrymandering. As time has gone on, gerrymandering has been manipulated by both the Republican and Democratic parties by them re-drawing districts specifically to change the possible outcome of their “political cartoon” if you will. House seats are being re-apportioned every presidential election year. The video suggested that these means of politics have made it so that “the politicians are choosing their voters, rather than the voters choosing their politicians”. This is causing major distrust in candidates and decrease in voter participation. Gerrymandering has been beneficial to incumbents because they change their districts to work in favor of their election. Both the Electoral College and gerrymandering can be seen as unfair or corrupt government practices because they can sometimes both not accurately depict the peoples' votes by changing their districts. With the Electoral College, they could win a majority of the electoral votes, but not the majority vote. With gerrymandering, a politician would be elected just because of the re-drawn, manipulated districts, which is ridiculous. 

Rescooped by Zachary Oretsky from Happy Baby Boomers
Scoop.it!

The GOP's latest brawl: To shut down or not to shut down?

The GOP's latest brawl: To shut down or not to shut down? | BHS GOPO | Scoop.it

The fight over a possible government shutdown next month is part of a larger battle for the direction of the Republican Party


Via Life Coaching for Baby Boomers
Zachary Oretsky's insight:

There is a push by some Republicans to shut down the government in order to convince polititians to vote against Obamacare. Some believe this will hurt the economy because of the hault of government funding.

 

Shutting down the government would just worsen our economy. It is not the right way to get things done. Shutting down the government, which would stop funding, to make a case for ending Obamacare is too risky and the public is not prepared for an economic crisis.

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Zachary Oretsky
Scoop.it!

Same War, Different Country

Same War, Different Country | BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
Who will prevail in the Arab awakening, Hobbes, Khomeini or Jefferson?
Zachary Oretsky's insight:

I strongly agree with him. We need to stop Assad and his regime but it will take some time. Our troops will have to get involved if order is to be maintained in Syria. We are dealing with more than just the Assad regime. The entire country could fall apart if we don't hold it together.

more...
Mackenzie Hill's curator insight, September 11, 2013 1:28 AM

It's concerning to think that the US's help in Syria could lead to a political and economic recession as tragic as Libya's after American intervention. Friedman's point about how, though we are fighting in different places, we continuously fight over the same things, and thus it is one war. It seems, however, that in every intervention, no matter the strategy, we, as a nation, make some sort of fatal mistake. 

Abe's curator insight, September 11, 2013 2:58 AM

I found this article very interesting and easy to comprehend. It really helped shed light on how Syria is just another war in the Middle East with the same issue just as the other wars that had happened in the region.

George's curator insight, September 11, 2013 3:43 AM

Friedman does a good job persuading people by refering back to past experiences that America has been through. Like the saying goes, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

Scooped by Zachary Oretsky
Scoop.it!

Video: Denis McDonough: 'Outraged' at Ted Cruz's Al Qaeda comments

Video: Denis McDonough: 'Outraged' at Ted Cruz's Al Qaeda comments | BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
Denis McDonough, in an interview on ABC's 'This Week' said he was 'outraged' at Ted Cruz's comments that our forces would be serving as 'Al Qaeda's air force.' The interview was immediately followed by one with Sen.
Zachary Oretsky's insight:

I do believe that an attack is our best next move but, after hearing McDonough's comments, I am a little skeptical about how we will accomplish this attack. We don't know what the consequences will be but, that is a risk we have to take. I just wish I knew more about how the operation will be run. The public needs more assurance that troops will not be on the ground.

more...
Sammy Masri's curator insight, September 17, 2013 12:25 AM

30 seconds of generalized response isn't much to go on, and McDonough's statement showed it. Rather than namby-pamby about the issue, everyone needs to grab their fears by the horns are realize: "Yes, we will possibly be helping some groups that are maybe connected to Al-Qaeda. But in the meantime, we can help a whole country of civilians, who, when pressed, will vote for the more reasonable members of the rebels, IF the US helps in time."

 

No more of this "small, calculated, concise" strike nonsense.

Tianna Kelly's curator insight, December 1, 2013 9:02 PM

My initial reacton to Senator Cruz's was similar to McDonough's; Cruz's statement was clearly crafted to be sensational and make headlines. Although I am not a fan of potential United States military action in Syria, Cruz's comments were purposefully disrespectful and, as McDonough iterated, "outrageous".

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 7:35 PM

It seems very normal and typical for hte Chief of Staff to assure the public that there will be no boots on the ground, but I believe that no amount of assurance that this will be no Libya or Afghanistan, will persuade the American public to join this war.

Scooped by Zachary Oretsky
Scoop.it!

Can Obama Convince Congress to Approve a Limited Strike in Syria? - PBS

Can Obama Convince Congress to Approve a Limited Strike in Syria? - PBS | BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
Can Obama Convince Congress to Approve a Limited Strike in Syria?
PBS
President Barack Obama spent Labor Day lobbying Congress members to support a possible strike in Syria, following a high-level briefing for lawmakers Sunday.
more...
No comment yet.