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.