Amit Aggarwal's BHS Government Scoops
4 views | +0 today
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by Amit Aggarwal from Government and Economics!

It’s ridiculous to declare Obama’s presidency ‘finished’

It’s ridiculous to declare Obama’s presidency ‘finished’ | Amit Aggarwal's BHS Government Scoops |
A bit early for all the doomsaying.

Via Joel Leagans
Kyle Ozuna's comment, December 17, 2013 4:40 PM
Obama's presidency is far from 'over.' After all, he does still have two years left in office. While there may not be any huge pieces of legislation out of his administration, there is still a lot left he can do. With upcoming house elections in 2014 and the recent decline in popularity of the Republican party, it is not impossible that the Democrats will take over all of Congress. If this happens, Obama's presidency will be far from over.
Raveena Chhibber's comment, December 17, 2013 6:50 PM
By Douthat's first criterion, Obama's presidency is certainly over. By the second criterion, not so much. Thus far, people have measured his succes by the success of Obamacare which is not necessarily the best means of determining whether or not his presidency is over with 2 years still remaining in this term. Loss of faith as a result of Obamacare is definitely shows that are may be major problems later. Current polls show he is about as trusted as Congressional Republicans which, while not something to be proud of, is most likely as a result of Obamacare. Prematurely arguing that the Obama presidency is over based on an inability to pass would mean that Millard Fillmore's presidency never started. Upcoming elections can certainly change Obama's view in the public eye.
Stephanie Yard's curator insight, February 16, 2014 10:05 PM

It is ridiculous to say that Obama’s presidency is “finished”.  Obama’s Heath Care is a failure and the stock markets are breaking records.  Obama was simply elected because he described and promised a utopia for America, but in reality, is not achievable.  Unemployment, higher taxes, Obama care, and increased regulations on the economy are reasons why we cannot call Obama’s presidency “finished”…yet.  However, I think Obama’s act on gun control is a positive thing.  After the Aurora and Newtown shooting, Obama’s plan was to require background checks for all guns sales, ban military style assault weapons, limits mags to 10 rounds, etc.  Ultimately, Obama still has time to accomplish, and add to the world, but he must carry out some of the promises he made during his first term.  

Rescooped by Amit Aggarwal from Government and Economics!

Obamacare is Obama’s Obamacare. (Not his Katrina.)

Obamacare is Obama’s Obamacare. (Not his Katrina.) | Amit Aggarwal's BHS Government Scoops |
Whether Obamacare is good politics depends on whether it's good policy.

Via Joel Leagans
Niti Desai's comment, November 24, 2013 12:30 AM
I agree with the author, Hurricane Katrina and Obamacare are two different situations and they cannot be efficiently compared. In my opinion, the only way they are comparable are in terms of severity. The Obamacare situation for Obama can be said to be as severe as the Hurricane Katrina situation for Bush. They are different because no one died yet because of ObamaCare. Buth, they are similar because they both demonstrated a lack of competence. Bush's approval ratings do not show that Hurricane Katrina tremendously destructed it. However, Iraq was the dipping point. For Obama, his approval ratings may be able to recover some more if gets fixed soon. If not, then Obama may face a deep irrecoverable downward trend in his approval ratings.
Andrea Acuff's comment, November 24, 2013 10:37 PM
This article makes an interesting comparison between Hurricane Katrina and Obamacare. While Obamacare has been affected many people it is rather silly to compare it to a natural disaster that killed many people. Hurricane Katrina was a disaster that only received aid once the damage was already done. Obamacare however is capable of fixing its problems before they become out of hand. If the problems surrounding Obamacare and the website persist then it would be reasonable to compare the fact that a disaster like Katrina was inevitable for New Orleans similar the "disaster" that is inevitable if Obamacare is not taken care of. When relating these events to presidential approval ratings it is apparent that Bush was relatively unaffected by Katrina as it was a short term event that seemed second rate compared to Iraq. Obama's ratings could have a similar impact as Katrina did on Bush, but they could also fall if the problem becomes more long term.
Eugene Guan's comment, November 29, 2013 1:22 AM
I find that this author makes a good point on how Hurricane Katrina and Obamacare cannot be compared. They are definitely of separate matters. As is quoted, Katrina is a fast-paced catastrophe while Obamacare is an on-going program. The emergency response of Katrina cannot be irreversible while Obamacare can change and improve over time. The emergency responses must be prompt and precise in order to transfer proper rescue tools to the victims otherwise it shall be futile. In relating Obama and his approval ratings, if he were to somehow drastically improve the healthcare website, it would definitely shine a positive light towards his way. But if the website sees little to no improvement soon, I believe that Obama's approval rate shall dip further as it drags out for a longer period of time.
Rescooped by Amit Aggarwal from Government and Economics!

The Tea Party Is Damaging Its Credibility in the Way It Can Least Afford

The Tea Party Is Damaging Its Credibility in the Way It Can Least Afford | Amit Aggarwal's BHS Government Scoops |
A faction that faces doubts about its ability to govern responsibly has foolishly associated itself with default and government shutdown.

Via Joel Leagans
Anna Xu's comment, November 4, 2013 10:58 PM
The Tea Party is far too radical to gain major control of the government. Perhaps the scariest thing about the Tea Party is that its stance on some issues is unknown. The public is nervous about the Tea Party because they do not know the type of policy it will implement, and a transparent political issue is far preferable to an opaque one. Furthermore, if the Tea Party distances itself and its views further from the Republican Party, fewer constituents will follow the party away from the far more established, substantial Republican Party. The Tea Party is on its way to destroying itself.
Dayton Rosenberg's comment, November 5, 2013 5:04 PM
I can't wait for the Tea Party to self destruct. It's seemingly never-ending temper tantrums and refusals to cooperate have launched Congress into a state of "uberhyperpluralism". Furthermore, they are the sort of faction that would destroy the system if they don't get what they want, as the article stated.
Nathan Hsu's comment, November 6, 2013 4:39 PM
I'm expecting there to be a full on ideological split within the republican party within the next couple of years to such a point that the Tea Party will actually become a 3rd party that runs in upcoming elections. (ideal scenario: think about a debate that would feature Chris Christie, Hillary Clinton, and Ted Cruz running as the 3rd party candidate). This fracturing of the Rep. Party will obviously lead to dems winning even more elections easily in the future
Rescooped by Amit Aggarwal from Government and Economics!

The Real Cost of Gaming: Inflation, Time, and Purchasing Power - IGN

The Real Cost of Gaming: Inflation, Time, and Purchasing Power - IGN | Amit Aggarwal's BHS Government Scoops |
For the most part, games, consoles, and handhelds are cheaper than they've ever been. Here's all the proof you need.

Via Joel Leagans
Osama Arif's comment, November 7, 2013 10:25 PM
I found this article very interesting and it made me feel very happy. It would truly be an utmost tragedy if the prices of video games drastically increased, and many American youth could not afford them anymore. I think one of the reasons that video game prices decrease over time is that video games have such massive appeal and so by lowering the price even slightly, corporations can drastically increase sales. Also, new innovations frequently arise in the video game industry, so the prices of old, out of fashion games frequently decline and depreciate.
Emma Foster's comment, November 7, 2013 10:25 PM
Beyond just increased competition, the falling prices of game consoles is probably also a result of the fact that, instead of being a very new niche item without a well-established market and with relatively little history of manufacturing similar technology, consoles today are owned by a relatively large portion of the population, and as techniques for manufacturing electronics have improved, so too has the ease with which large numbers of them can be produced. Compare the computers of 1977, the year the Atari 2600 was released at a price of $771, to those of 2013, particularly the ubiquitous small ones people carry around in their pockets and can buy for a few hundred dollars. The capacity for manufacturing increasingly complex and compressed electronics is growing at a stunning rate, and has been for the period covered by a history of game consoles. It would be absurd to think that this massive technological growth has not been a major factor in their declining prices and increasing commonality.
Stephen Proler's comment, November 8, 2013 12:35 PM
As a former "obsessed gamer" I can relate to the information presided within this article. In my critical opinion Game prices are increasing with the increasing amount of development it takes to create a game. Graphics and online multiplayer are only some of the required aspects a game has to have today to compete with the monopolistic franchises such as Halo or Call of Duty. As the amount of games are increasing, the consumer will pay more the most appealing game forcing the producer to put as much money in possible to give the best presentation of a virtual reality. Game consoles have been decreasing in price due to their ability to last and use of cost efficiency. If my original X-Box 360 works just as well as the new X-Box One, what is the point of purchasing the new console unless the price of such console is at a low enough price for my utility to be satisfied. The market for the next great game or console is open for any idea. However, for the invention to truly be great it needs to be set at a price where the consumer will be willing to pay.
Rescooped by Amit Aggarwal from Government and Economics!

Why Obamacare Is a GOP Nightmare | RealClearPolitics

Why Obamacare Is a GOP Nightmare | RealClearPolitics | Amit Aggarwal's BHS Government Scoops |

Via Joel Leagans
Osama Arif's comment, October 3, 2013 10:22 PM
I agree with a lot of the points made in the article. A lot of Republicans just criticize Obama-care because Obama's name is attached to it. They are extremely bitter about losing the presidency and want to make sure that nothing significant gets accomplished under the Obama administration even if it improves the standard of living of thousands of Americans. Have the Republicans come up with any viable alternative to Obama-care? No. If they did, I would understand their complete opposition of the law, but the fact that they don't have one only reflects poorly on them. This whole Obama-care debacle is a classic example of partisan interests compromising what is best for the nation.
Jiahao Chen's curator insight, October 4, 2013 6:48 PM

In this article, it sees the  Obamacare more from a democratic way. But all the things and facts that he says are all based on truth, and attacking republicans in a very gentle way. But I really like a sentence what he says,

Republicans scream that Obamacare is sure to fail. But what they really fear is that it will succeed.
He listed almost all the good things about Obamcare, ans surely, the good or bad side of Obamacare depends on The people who critize it, either republican or democrats. But only after years later, people can say that the Obamacare is bad or good. People don't judge before experiencing. 

Eugene Guan's comment, October 4, 2013 8:11 PM
From this article, you can infer that the Republicans are still bitter about their loss in the past elections. Rather than Republicans protesting against Obamacare because it's a bad program, it is more so that they are protesting just for the sake of going against Obama. The initial program of healthcare to the 30mil people without it originated from the Republican Party. They were the ones that came up with it. It really just seems that the House Republicans are driven by ideology than an interest in lawmaking. The party shows no serious interest in finding a GOP-friendly way to provide the uninsured with access to health care. In their entire course of actions, they're mainly concerned that Obamacare will actually succeed thus providing the Democrats huge momentum when the 2016 elections come around. In order to prevent this, the Republicans as seen are rebelling against the idea of Obamacare and trying to villianize it.
Rescooped by Amit Aggarwal from Government and Economics!

Does Obama Have the Right to Change His Mind on Syria?

Does Obama Have the Right to Change His Mind on Syria? | Amit Aggarwal's BHS Government Scoops |
Perhaps he was following the admonition of Shakespeare's Falstaff in Henry IV that discretion is the better part of valor.

Via Joel Leagans
Amit Aggarwal's comment, September 17, 2013 7:02 PM
I feel that since Obama is the one who initially declared about how America would react to Syria's use of chemical warfare, he should have the right to change his mind on Syria. Normally, whenever the president makes a declaration, it is in the public opinion to follow or to oppose his views. Not everyone will always be happy with the government, specifically the president and his actions. Another point I want to bring out Obama realizes that if the U.S. attacks Syria, I believe that he realizes that there are many other factors that need to be taken into account. Russia, an ally of Syria, would be upset about the fact that U.S. had bombed Syria to punish them for the chemical warfare, causing tensions between Putin and Obama, potentially starting World War 3. Also the fact that the U.S. had just finished a war with Iraq and Afghanistan after 12 years means that the U.S. has a lot of wartime debt. Considering the economy, going to war over this issue would have huge negative consequences. Obama does have the right to change his mind because I think he started to realize that there are other allies of Syria who would retaliate, and that the issue of starting another war would deteriorate the economy. I agree with Charlie Cook that Obama isn't famously known for being a pacifist. But I believe that Obama should have considered other factors into account before he even made such a declaration because otherwise, it gives the message that Syria can continue unpunished.
Rescooped by Amit Aggarwal from Government and Economics!

3 Ideas to Make College (Mostly) Free

3 Ideas to Make College (Mostly) Free | Amit Aggarwal's BHS Government Scoops |
Oregon's Legislature is kicking around concepts that would make college free, or much cheaper, for Oregon's increasingly diverse student population.

Via Joel Leagans
Jennifer Li's comment, December 16, 2013 9:56 PM
I don't believe this idea would significantly improve education which is the point of making college education more accessible. Simply making lower quality education free and mandatory will only result in students who are unwilling to learn stuck in classrooms. It'll become a mirror of how high school is right now. All of the resources will be wasted. Instead, we should focus on creating opportunities for students who want to go to college and deserve to. I agree with Rose that teacher quality in high school should be a bigger concern for states than the cost of college.
Eugene Guan's comment, December 17, 2013 5:15 PM
I think the idea of of "pay it forward" is really helpful but at the same time i find it highly unlikely for this program to ever be implemented. There are too many loopholes as just how the colleges are going to be able to track the graduates or the people who drop out. Some may be moving out of the state or even out of the country. The thought is nice and all, but i can not see it ever producing much results other than colleges actually losing a lot of money.
Stephanie Yard's curator insight, February 16, 2014 10:54 PM

Nothing is free, in some way, you’re paying- indirectly or not.  However, the idea of allowing students from low-income families to attend college is a plus.  Everyone should have the opportunity to attend college, not matter what the financial circumstance is.  The way Organ plans to carry this “make college free” plan is another story.  Requiring “all” high school students to earn 9 college credits before graduation is nearly impossible.  Some students in high school don’t want to take AP classes and some don’t have the drive, or want to go to college.  Making college free, or mostly free, won’t increase the percent by 20%.  Students who what to go to college will find a way, and having the government spend $9 billion is a waste.   

Rescooped by Amit Aggarwal from Government and Economics!

Obama vs. the Generals

Obama vs. the Generals | Amit Aggarwal's BHS Government Scoops |
After a spate of news stories this summer citing tensions between President Barack Obama and his top military commanders over the possibility of U.S.

Via Joel Leagans
Amit Aggarwal's comment, November 16, 2013 12:29 AM
I feel that with Obama, instead of performing actions that he thinks is best, he should do whats also best for the generals. Normally, he can send out the generals with or without congressional approval, but I feel that if anything, he should at least take the Army's perspective into account when he reaches his decision on whether or not to send the army. The author talks about talking to the general about the Afghanistan war, and by the general rolling his eyes, I feel that the General and the army feels under appreciated and overworked for complying with the President. What I mainly understand from this article is that the army is not indifferent to the president, but definitely not positive towards him either. I have to agree with Niti here. If the army starts to go against the president, our government could be overthrown which is a scary thought. The last thing we need is a revolution followed by anarchy. When the title is labeled "Obama vs. the Generals", that gives a sense that they have opposing views, but under the War Powers Resolution, the generals "HAVE" to listen to the president and be sent to their designated areas. With the lack of respect for the president, the military seems to be gathering up all of their anger. I only hope that we never have to experience when the generals decide to explode back. I also have to agree with the generals, talking about how they can't necessarily comply with the average citizen's requests on "what they should really be doing." These citizens aren't the ones who have experienced bloodshed before(most haven't) and therefore do not understand what the military has to suffer. Later on in the article, it talks about how Obama seemed to make rash decisions and I have to agree with the author. To immediately send thousands of more troops because of the leak of losing the war seems to be the innate thing to do, but Obama didn't realize that there were other approaches to the problem. I also believe that the military would know whats best in who to recruit for the army. I find it ironic that the army does much for the nation, yet their recommendations for recruitment is basically overlooked by the Pentagon. The Pentagon seems to care about the money involved while the Generals seem to care about who is really going to win the war. Bottom line is this: I think that Obama doesn't really think that well when he comes to decisions about sending the army to foreign areas and immediately increasing the army. If the Pentagon really is concerned about the money, then increasing the army would be a huge issue for them. I believe that the Generals know best as to what should happen and who should they receive as part of their army. It comes down to whether you want 20,000 lame-duck soldiers, or 300 outstanding soldiers. This article mainly views the government in a negative perspective, siding with the Generals. The author's persuasive diction led me to agree with him about most of the information he states. The best statement that I would like to point out is this: "The military and the White House are not supposed to be on different 'sides,' but there's a long history of mutual recriminations." That is the main argument of this article.
Linh Phan's comment, November 17, 2013 6:03 PM
No general will speak out if they have disagreements with the commander in chief, but I don't think the president listens to his military generals very well because no general would let his men get killed in Benghazi.
Thomas Dudey's comment, November 23, 2013 1:23 AM
The author believes that Obama’s decision to bomb Syria after it used chemical weapons was unpopular with military leaders. The author interviews officers who opposed the intervention in Syria and believed that the White House did not care about their opinion on the matter. Even though he offers the quotes of White House members that deny this, the author remains unconvinced of their sincerity. He even says that the White House and the military are on different sides, despite the unity that should be between with them as Obama’s role as commander-in-chief. I think that the author and military generals believe that the Syria bombing plan could potentially cause the United States to be drawn into a military conflict where American boots may eventually land in Syria, and this would cost the lives of the people serving in the military of the United States.
Rescooped by Amit Aggarwal from Government and Economics!

Higher taxes shouldn’t be the Democratic Party’s top priority

Higher taxes shouldn’t be the Democratic Party’s top priority | Amit Aggarwal's BHS Government Scoops |
Sorry, Democrats, but you've lost on taxes. Time to move on.

Via Joel Leagans
Kyle Ozuna's comment, November 6, 2013 10:49 PM
As agreed upon in the shutdown deal, a bicameral budget commission will seek to find a solution to US fiscal policy. However, this commission, like the many before it, is bound to fail due to the Democrats' unreasonable demand for an increase in taxes. Klein describes how Democrats played the game wrong during previous sequestration debates. The Democrats planned that the thought of defense cuts would cause Republicans to give up tax increases. However, Republican didn't care about defense spending as much as they thought which led to Republican victories during the talks. Sequestration led to a Republican victory because it locked in the defect reduction without increases taxes. Democrats are in no way going to be able to sway Republicans on this issue - they have a victory and they're going to cling to it.
David Miller's comment, November 8, 2013 2:51 PM
The parties argue over money and taxes as much as they can. The way they spend is always for personal gain and to tear down the others arguments. It seems as though Kyle mentioned if they discussed what the true thoughts on spending and taxes were something productive might get done. All the parties look for are wins for votes and elections.
Anthony Nguyen's comment, November 8, 2013 8:01 PM
After reading this article, I agree with the points that Klein makes in this article. It's the ideology of the Republican Party to refuse any tax raises, so the Democratic Party should use this fact to their advantage. Like the major budget commissions, nothing will ever be achieved of the two parties continually argue on taxes. I agree with Klein's idea that the Democrats should accept their loss on taxes and focus on other issues. The author lists three reasons why Democrats should give up taxes which all seem to go in favor of the Democrats. With the leverage the Democrats have over the Republicans, the Democrats should use their advantage to pass legislation that they seek.
Rescooped by Amit Aggarwal from Government and Economics!

This is why the medical device tax is in so much trouble

This is why the medical device tax is in so much trouble | Amit Aggarwal's BHS Government Scoops |
Look at where the medical device companies are.

Via Joel Leagans
Jiahao Chen's curator insight, October 23, 2013 8:08 PM

The voice of Mdeical device  manufactory CEOs,"PLEASE, Senator, help me, my employees and our families by repealing this new, unfair and burdensome tax. It is already a struggle to keep our company going as a manufacturer in NJ and the US - this new tax could be the death knell for us!" It's not called lobbying, actually begging, the taxes putting on the products would not affct the profits gradually, instead, if they lower the products prices, less taxes would be collected, and would be more acceptable by those patients, would make more profits than set up a high price.

Amit Aggarwal's comment, October 26, 2013 10:24 PM
I feel that the main reason this tax was put into place was because of the Democrats. They normally believe in taxing high rates to the rich to try to distribute more money towards the poor. I agree with the author of this article where almost no industry can exist without taxes, but ultimately, I don't understand why it is such a big deal for the doctors to banging the door of the Senators. According to Micah Stott from Arizona, although the tax affected their explicit costs, there is still a 100% increase in profits. However, I can kind of see how the tax is really imposing a negative consequence to the medical community. Although I agree with the Democrat's perspective on taxing the rich, I still believe that people really work hard to get that money and it shouldn't be taken away so easily just so that others, who aren't fortunate to obtain jobs, can obtain free money with transfer payments and other methods. The Medical Community is already suffering through Obamacare, where everyone receives health benefits, so some physicians can't charge the proper amount, ultimately leading to negative gross amounts. My main issue with this article is that the author is pretty bipolar about the issue. He includes responses that support and refute the tax, and personally, he is questioning whether this tax is really useful or not.
Jiahao Chen's comment, October 31, 2013 10:08 PM
The voice of Mdeical device manufactory CEOs,"PLEASE, Senator, help me, my employees and our families by repealing this new, unfair and burdensome tax. It is already a struggle to keep our company going as a manufacturer in NJ and the US - this new tax could be the death knell for us!" It's not called lobbying, actually begging, the taxes putting on the products would not affct the profits gradually, instead, if they lower the products prices, less taxes would be collected, and would be more acceptable by those patients, would make more profits than set up a high price.
Rescooped by Amit Aggarwal from Government and Economics!

Can We Pay a Minimum Wage That Makes Everyone Rich?

Can We Pay a Minimum Wage That Makes Everyone Rich? | Amit Aggarwal's BHS Government Scoops |
Last week, fast-food workers staged a one-day strike in 60 U.S. cities to demand a minimum wage of $15 an hour, more than double the current federal minimum of $7.25.

Via Joel Leagans
Linh Phan's comment, September 23, 2013 7:19 PM
For humanity's reasons, yes it would be nice to get paid a fifteen dollar minimum wage, but if the wage is fifteen dollars. The employer will not hire as many as they use to. And who is seriously going to pay 10 dollars for a Big Mac. It's called minimum wage for a reason. If you want higher pay, then you should get some education or find another job that has higher pay. That's if you want a higher standard of living.
Amanda Shang's comment, September 30, 2013 10:33 PM
It seems unreasonable to raise the minimum wage to fifteen dollars an hour, because by placing a price floor that is higher than ever, there will be an increased amount of surplus of workers, which means increasing the number of unemployed individuals. Higher wages means companies will be less willing to hire many workers. The price increase of Big Mac's that imminently follow the higher wages would cause the quantity demanded by consumers to decrease. Overall, establishing a fifteen dollar minimum wage doesn't seem to benefit anyone.
Joel Leagans's comment, October 7, 2013 2:09 PM
Crystal most economics topics are political issues, thus government ;)
Rescooped by Amit Aggarwal from Government and Economics!

The Generation Gap and the 2012 Election

The Generation Gap and the 2012 Election | Amit Aggarwal's BHS Government Scoops |
Overview In the last four national elections, generational differences have mattered more than they have in decades. According to the exit polls, younger

Via Joel Leagans
Amit Aggarwal's comment, September 17, 2013 9:22 PM
What I think is ironic is that this article talks about how the younger generation has voted a lot more in recent polls and they are more Republican as the Boomers and Silencers, yet the Democratic Party won the elections of 2008 and 2012. It is kind of strange to say though that the majority of our generation of Boomers and Silencers were dominantly Republican, mainly talking about how the Republican party should have won. It doesn't specifically say that, but I feel that it is kind of implied within the passage. Additionally, some people are just agreeing to political parties based on the principles of the party rather than the policies, which I find suprising. How can you say that you are Republican but not follow its principles of going against certain policies like Social Security? That seems a little unlikely to me.
J. Ejekam's comment, September 23, 2013 11:48 PM
I agree with Amit. I find it ironic that according this article, Romney was favored to win the 2012 election. However, that was not the case. I'm not surprised that Silent and Boomer voters were predominantly Republican because this was a time over segregation and civil rights movement with a lot of conflict which more or less still lives inside our now current seniors of America. With the facts gathered from tis article and the results of the 2012 election, it seemed to be that the younger population stepped up and contributed their vote considering the younger population (Millennial Voters) favored Obama and he was the winner.
David Miller's curator insight, October 4, 2013 5:38 PM

Demographics obviously change the ways elections have worked since the start of our country.  The past several elections have showed that.  If you can target each group properly one would have no problem securing the presidency.  Political parties restrict reaching out to certain groups because the beliefs already forced on with the name of a party.