Blog 8

I agree with what Tyler said about our government being able to pull our economy out of the recession. The "Cash for Clunkers" plan has been successful, although some people don't agree because so much money has been put into it. Most people believe Obama so far hasn't been successful because he hasn't directly helped their family or them recently, but in the long run I believe Obama will help the majority of Americans get back on their feet, even if it takes longer than what some people are willing to wait for. Americans are being more critical of Obama's plan for the near future, I believe, because he actually has a plan and is sticking to it. So if it goes wrong, or isn't "up to par" of what society wants, then they're willing to be more critical of him. But if things go well, then they get upset because Obama didn't "step up" or "take it further." When the long run comes around though, our economy eventually will get better. We just have to be willing to be patient for it, and not expect direct results right away.

blog 7 Obamas Stimulus Plan

President Obama's stimulus plan says that he will provide tax cuts to workers, a bonus to seniors, relief to homeowners, aids to certain states, and extend the Unemployment Insurance. All of these, on paper, sound like great ideas. But where will we get the money to do all of these? Tax smaller groups of people, therefore taxes rise? Borrow more money from other countries, making the national debt go higher?
"Obama believes we cannot wait until he becomes president to give workers the tax relief they need. He believes we should make half of the tax credit, $250 per worker, available immediately in order to quickly get money into the pockets of Americans." Sure, workers, among with lots of other people, need to get money into their pockets quickly. But do we need to only provide relief to this group of people? And where does this money come from? Taxing other people more to give it to one certain group?
Our current unemployment rate is said to be almost twice as high as it was last year. Obama says "Providing these workers additional assistance in a time of economic distress is
necessary to ensure consumer spending remains at an acceptable level and that they have a chance at restarting their careers." But how long will Obama want to provide "relief" to these people? When will he say enough is enough? Sure, making sure consumer spending stays the same is good, but how can they expect to restart their careers if they just continue to spend the loan they're given? Eventually money will become so tight that loans wont be able to be given to everyone. What is Obama's plan then?

Blog 6

I completely agree with Josh on Democracy. It is by far more superior to many other forms of government, however there are alot of flaws. The main thing I dislike is the ability of our government to look into our "lives," so to say, by looking into our private files or tapping our phone lines without our say so. Josh says that our government "while being able to voice our opinions has a severe time lag in actually doing so." I'm not quite sure I agree with this part. Sure, it takes awhile for our, and by this I mean the American people, voice to be heard and change something in our society, but wouldn't this be the same in any type of Democracy? We can't expect to just vote on something and have it changed a month or so later. "It is most likely that the top issues of today will be solved later and probably won't be judged adequately at that." I can certainly see why one would say this. There are still debates going on about gay marriage (for example) that haven't been solved. But, I believe, with issues that are of the upmost importance, they are being handled as well and efficiently as can be expected. All in all, I'm quite satisfied with our Democracy. I wouldn't do anything to change it even if I could, although I'm sure someone somewhere disagrees.

Blog 4

In David Segal's post about "The New Educational Divide", he states that children "..of parents who play this active role in their education will tend to perform better in school than children of less-involved parents." Basically, he says throughout the article that if children have parents who are more involved in their schools then the child will do better. But if the parent isn't as involved, the child may well fall behind. Segal states that "... for any of a variety of reasons - health, language barriers, constraints from employment, or, sometimes, lack of concern - some children simply do not have stable adult guidance in their schooling." He recommends that charter schools have admission for a random sample of students, then the student and family could decide whether or not to attend. "Parental engagement in education should be strongly encouraged, but having involved parents should never be a prerequisite for a child to gain access to the best opportunities. That would mean many kids - those who are already somewhat disadvantaged - would unfairly miss out." This means that students shouldn't have to have parents that are actively involved in their schooling for them to have access to certain opportunities. The student would unfairly miss out if the parent didn't have the means or a way to be involved. I agree with what he says. Students should equally have a chance to further their education the best way they can, not based on what their parents do in their school community. If a student's parents couldn't speak English, that shouldn't reflect on how much opportunity the student has in his or her school. Likewise for any financial reasons.

Single-Payer Health "Care"

With all due respect to my fellow classmates, I disagree that we should turn to a single-paying healthcare provider. There are already companies that provide adequate healthcare to individuals or families: Medicare and Medicaid. Granted, they aren't as "advanced" or "helpful" (debateable) as someone who is using insurance, but that's what they're there for: people who can't afford insurance. It wouldn't be fair to make everyone have the same healthcare if someone can afford it and others can't. Two people walk into a store. They both buy the same shirt for $14.99. The first person puts it on their credit card. The second person only has $6.00. The store owner sells it to the second person for the six dollars. Fair? Hardly. We would end up giving away or selling people short on medical help that would be vital to our community.

Participation Topic 3

The United States should absolutely not turn to a single-payer health care system. If they did, doctors would end up making less money and individuals would be listening more to what the government said about their conditions rather than their doctors. Less money would be invested in hospitals and new technology, therefore we could possibly fall behind on medical advancements resulting in helping less people. There should be medicaid or medicare for the poorer people, but it shouldn't be equal. It wouldn't be fair if someone working made a certain amount but was only subject to the same health care as someone who was homeless, or almost so. "Patients would suffer as well, especially in the long run. Because fewer highly talented people would be willing to undergo the years of training (under difficult working conditions and low pay) to become physicians, patients would suffer decreased access to health care and longer wait times." (Single-Payer...) Everyone would have to wait for the same forms to be filled out and the same doctors to do the same limited procedures. Hospitals would inevitably become overcrowded, and doctors or surgeons would only be allowed to do certain acts to help them. It's a very negative thing, single-payer healthcare, and it's just more of a way for the government to attempt to control the people.

Commentary #1

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness- the fundamental rights on which our nation was founded. They are said to be "unalienable." But how far have people taken these "rights"? The right to live: some people believe should be decided by other people (death penalty), has been debated for many years. Some people think the courts should decide whether or not a criminal should be in jail for life or given the death sentence. Others believe the death sentence is wrong. Others still believe no one should decide- that when it's some one's time to die, they will die. That groups or individuals shouldn't be the deciding factor on some one's life. They should decide for themselves, or let nature take its toll. Liberty: to be free from a dictatorship or other form of oppression. Should America let government take over and make all the important decisions for us, or should the power still be given to the people? According to the Constitution, the people have the power to make decisions; voting, for example. Thomas Jefferson said, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed." Meaning that the people are the ones in charge, not their governments. The pursuit of happiness: society cannot take away a certain some one's rights to be happy and safe for no reason. That every man has the right to make a decision for himself, as long as it doesn't put others into jeopardy. The right to own a gun, for example. Some believe that everyone is entitled to have a gun. Others think that someone should have a reason to need or purchase a gun. It's the people's choice whether or not to do certain things, and that the government need not regulate every action we take.