Terms to Know(provided by Google):
*Unemployment benefits-payments made to people who are unemployed
*Extended benefits-"additional Federally funded weeks of benefits paid during periods of high unemployment as provided by the US Congress"
*recession-the state of a declined economy
Some research shows that receiving unemployment benefits has little to do with those who are unemployed. Although some debaters believed that people found it easy to be unemployed and chose to stay that way due to the benefits they were receiving, economists Rob Valletta and Katherine Kuang prove otherwise.
They stated,"We calculate that, in the absence of extended benefits, the unemployment rate would have been about 0.4 percentage points lower at the end of 2009, or about 9.6% rather than 10%." This shows that the effects of the recession are still prominent within the unemployment rate of our country. San Francisco Federal Chief, Janet Yellen, predicts that it will take until about 2011 to get the unemployment rate down to 8% from the current 10%. This long period of recovery shows that we won't truly be out of our recession until our unemploymet rate goes down. Fortunately there have been 162,000 jobs added since March, which marks some progress.
Unemployment exists due to the many layoffs and paycuts and job cuts as a result of the recession. Businesses had to keep themselves afloat by cutting of jobs for people that otherwise would have received money. Job cuts won't last forever, but as long as this recession recovery lasts, businesses will be trying to keep themselves alive while jobs can be offered from other places.
I think that it will take a long time to recover from this recession, but as long as jobs are steadily available, more people will be employed and the unemployment rate will go down.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/04/19/dont-blame-unemployment-extension-for-high-jobless-rate/
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Unemployed on Purpose?
Definitions:
*GDP-gross domestic product
As I was skimming over the articles on the New York Times website, one article about unemployment caught my eye. Toward the end of the article, Krugman, the man who wrote our new Economics book, was mentioned! Acoording to the article some critics suggest that unemployment benefits are being taken up by people who do not want to return to work. Those who are evaluating tis situation say that because the benefits of the unmployment insurance are cushioned, people find it more comfortable to stay unemployed instead of going back to work. Krugman argues that the unemployed cannot be guaranteed a job when the product or service they make is not being demanded due to the recession. However, studies were shown that e=when given an unemployment benefit exhaustion date, people would find a job one week prior to the exhastion date.
From an economic standpoint, it is difficult to rid our nation of the recession quickly if we have less workers to help pick the economy off of it's feet. When more people have jobs, they contribute to the amount of product being supplied, but do people have enough money to demand more of what is supplied? This law of supply and demand is again introduced in relation to jobs. It is difficult to climb out of a recession with this law obstructed.
I think that some people do use theri unemployment benefits because they feel comfortable not working, but on the other hand, there are a great many who truly cannot find jobs after being unexpectedly fired or laid off. It is a very delicate situation to try and fix the problem when we're not sure if the unemployment are being used out of want or need.
Article: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/do-jobless-benefits-discourage-people-from-finding-jobs/#more-57175
(Originally posted 3/21/10)
*GDP-gross domestic product
As I was skimming over the articles on the New York Times website, one article about unemployment caught my eye. Toward the end of the article, Krugman, the man who wrote our new Economics book, was mentioned! Acoording to the article some critics suggest that unemployment benefits are being taken up by people who do not want to return to work. Those who are evaluating tis situation say that because the benefits of the unmployment insurance are cushioned, people find it more comfortable to stay unemployed instead of going back to work. Krugman argues that the unemployed cannot be guaranteed a job when the product or service they make is not being demanded due to the recession. However, studies were shown that e=when given an unemployment benefit exhaustion date, people would find a job one week prior to the exhastion date.
From an economic standpoint, it is difficult to rid our nation of the recession quickly if we have less workers to help pick the economy off of it's feet. When more people have jobs, they contribute to the amount of product being supplied, but do people have enough money to demand more of what is supplied? This law of supply and demand is again introduced in relation to jobs. It is difficult to climb out of a recession with this law obstructed.
I think that some people do use theri unemployment benefits because they feel comfortable not working, but on the other hand, there are a great many who truly cannot find jobs after being unexpectedly fired or laid off. It is a very delicate situation to try and fix the problem when we're not sure if the unemployment are being used out of want or need.
Article: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/do-jobless-benefits-discourage-people-from-finding-jobs/#more-57175
(Originally posted 3/21/10)
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Giving Jobs with No Taxes! Yay!
Definitions:
*bipartisan-supported by both parties
*tax credit-a direct reduction in tax liability
"By a biparisan vote of 61 to 30, the Senate eliminated the final procedural obstacle to approval later this week of a bill that would exempt employers from payroll taxes throught the end of the year on newly hired employees who have been out of work for at least 60 days." This has been one of the first legislations to have both Republican and Democrat support. Senators like Harry Reid of Nevada are anxious to get this "jobs measure" passed by the President so that people will begin getting hired within the next few days. "Democratic supporters of the bill said the measure would create hundreds of thousands of new jobs while providing tax benefits to small businesses that make investments in their operations." When employees are kept for at least one year, the small busoinesses receive $1000 tax credit which means they would be saving money. There also a measure in the process of being evaluated that would provide a safety net for employees who go through unexpected, unpaid periods.
This bill was passed to hopefully encourage businesses to provide more jobs to people. Through this measure, businesses can help lower the jobless rate by giving people jobs while saving themselves money too.
Though it took a while to pass this new "no taxation" measure, because of the attention shift to the health care bill, it will still be effective. This is only one more step toward eding our recession and the vast number of people who have lost their jobs. Hopefully this bill works in the favor of our American citizens so that they can feed their families while stimulating our economy.
Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/16/us/politics/16cong.html?ref=economy
(Originally posted 3/16/10)
*bipartisan-supported by both parties
*tax credit-a direct reduction in tax liability
"By a biparisan vote of 61 to 30, the Senate eliminated the final procedural obstacle to approval later this week of a bill that would exempt employers from payroll taxes throught the end of the year on newly hired employees who have been out of work for at least 60 days." This has been one of the first legislations to have both Republican and Democrat support. Senators like Harry Reid of Nevada are anxious to get this "jobs measure" passed by the President so that people will begin getting hired within the next few days. "Democratic supporters of the bill said the measure would create hundreds of thousands of new jobs while providing tax benefits to small businesses that make investments in their operations." When employees are kept for at least one year, the small busoinesses receive $1000 tax credit which means they would be saving money. There also a measure in the process of being evaluated that would provide a safety net for employees who go through unexpected, unpaid periods.
This bill was passed to hopefully encourage businesses to provide more jobs to people. Through this measure, businesses can help lower the jobless rate by giving people jobs while saving themselves money too.
Though it took a while to pass this new "no taxation" measure, because of the attention shift to the health care bill, it will still be effective. This is only one more step toward eding our recession and the vast number of people who have lost their jobs. Hopefully this bill works in the favor of our American citizens so that they can feed their families while stimulating our economy.
Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/16/us/politics/16cong.html?ref=economy
(Originally posted 3/16/10)
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Here, Let Me Help You Get Off the Couch...for $400
Definitions:
*pro bono- done for the public good without compensation
*C.P.A.- certified public accountant
Recently, not many college graduates have been getting jobs after graduating. According to employer's estimation, the number of college graduates that get hired has declined by 21.6 percent and is planned to drop 7 more in the present year. Despite these discourging numbers, Lesley Mitler has a possible solution to this problem. She is a "long-time recruiter for Wall Street and a former C.P.A." and she has a "get them off the couch" strategy. She is getting paid $400 an hour to coach recent college graduates on how to land their first job. Her business, Priority Candidates, has teamed up with Greenberg Educational Group, a tutoring company in New York that already specializes in SAT prep and college advising." This program was most likely executed in response to words stated by authors like JEan Twenge, who think college graduates are incapable of progressing though their own futures. Jean Twenge wrote "Generation Me" which suggested that the newer generation is not prepared for the challenging job market. She also noted that the newer generation expects others to do the work for them. So far, there is only one student taking the course, despite the 25 parents that showed up at the orientation. Because of Ms. Mitler's program this Boston College graduate is looking forward to being involved in music public relations and leaving her music publishing days behind.
Although Ms. Mitler had a good idea, I don't think it will be very effective as of right now. Since we are still in mid-recession, it will be hard for most college graduates or their parents to pay her $400 an hour. The fact that she only had one student out of 25 should prove this point. True, college graduates need jobs, but so do 10 percent of other Americans. It may also be true that some college graduates are lazy or distracted with websites like Twitter, Facebook, Skype, etc. but there are lots of others who are persistently looking for jobs.
Students may need a job in order to pay the $400 an hour, in which case the program would not be needed. I think it would be even more helpful if Lesley Mitler provided this program for free, so that more college graduates would be helped by the information given during the program. By making it a non-profit, free service, she could help college graduates across America, not just one. But why hasn't she thought of that? Is her motive really to help college graduates get jobs or to get mor money for herself? In my opinion, her motive for doing this determines how succesful her program will be.
Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/06/nyregion/06bigcity.html?ref=economy
*pro bono- done for the public good without compensation
*C.P.A.- certified public accountant
Recently, not many college graduates have been getting jobs after graduating. According to employer's estimation, the number of college graduates that get hired has declined by 21.6 percent and is planned to drop 7 more in the present year. Despite these discourging numbers, Lesley Mitler has a possible solution to this problem. She is a "long-time recruiter for Wall Street and a former C.P.A." and she has a "get them off the couch" strategy. She is getting paid $400 an hour to coach recent college graduates on how to land their first job. Her business, Priority Candidates, has teamed up with Greenberg Educational Group, a tutoring company in New York that already specializes in SAT prep and college advising." This program was most likely executed in response to words stated by authors like JEan Twenge, who think college graduates are incapable of progressing though their own futures. Jean Twenge wrote "Generation Me" which suggested that the newer generation is not prepared for the challenging job market. She also noted that the newer generation expects others to do the work for them. So far, there is only one student taking the course, despite the 25 parents that showed up at the orientation. Because of Ms. Mitler's program this Boston College graduate is looking forward to being involved in music public relations and leaving her music publishing days behind.
Although Ms. Mitler had a good idea, I don't think it will be very effective as of right now. Since we are still in mid-recession, it will be hard for most college graduates or their parents to pay her $400 an hour. The fact that she only had one student out of 25 should prove this point. True, college graduates need jobs, but so do 10 percent of other Americans. It may also be true that some college graduates are lazy or distracted with websites like Twitter, Facebook, Skype, etc. but there are lots of others who are persistently looking for jobs.
Students may need a job in order to pay the $400 an hour, in which case the program would not be needed. I think it would be even more helpful if Lesley Mitler provided this program for free, so that more college graduates would be helped by the information given during the program. By making it a non-profit, free service, she could help college graduates across America, not just one. But why hasn't she thought of that? Is her motive really to help college graduates get jobs or to get mor money for herself? In my opinion, her motive for doing this determines how succesful her program will be.
Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/06/nyregion/06bigcity.html?ref=economy
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Young and the Reckless?
Three months away from graduation and I'm thinking about my upcoming college life. The school, the environment, dormitories, and oops! what about health insurance? Most younger people don't have health insurance and an article I read discusses the possible reasons for this lack of insurance. In the beginning of the article, it proposed that younger Americans did not have health insurance because they simply felt no need to have it. Typically, young adults are less likely to have health issues than older Americans. But that is definitely not the only reason not many young adults have health insurance. MONEY is kind of a big factor in health insurance. Most young adults don't earn enough money to pay for health insurance, so they go without it. Luckily, they're are less likely to have health issues, but that is not always a guarantee.
In this situation, there is a lack of sufficient funds to have young adults support themselves health wise. Because of their inability to pay for health insurance, insurance companies have had to compensate for this gap in their earnings by raising the costs of premiums. I could imagine the stress on the pockets of the people who pay those high premiums. More money put into health insurance costs is less money in other areas and businesses that need their economy stimulated.
I suppose that if health insurance companies lowered their prices to an affordable price that everybody, including low-income young adults, can afford then more of them would purchase it. Would that cover every aspect of why young adults usually don't have health insurance? No, most likely not. Perhaps a combination of higher wages and lower premiums would hike up number of young adults who purchase health insurance.
Definitions:
*compensate-to recompense for something, to counterbalance
*premiums-payment for insurance
Article: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/26/driving-the-young-from-the-insurance-pool/
In this situation, there is a lack of sufficient funds to have young adults support themselves health wise. Because of their inability to pay for health insurance, insurance companies have had to compensate for this gap in their earnings by raising the costs of premiums. I could imagine the stress on the pockets of the people who pay those high premiums. More money put into health insurance costs is less money in other areas and businesses that need their economy stimulated.
I suppose that if health insurance companies lowered their prices to an affordable price that everybody, including low-income young adults, can afford then more of them would purchase it. Would that cover every aspect of why young adults usually don't have health insurance? No, most likely not. Perhaps a combination of higher wages and lower premiums would hike up number of young adults who purchase health insurance.
Definitions:
*compensate-to recompense for something, to counterbalance
*premiums-payment for insurance
Article: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/26/driving-the-young-from-the-insurance-pool/
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Horrible Horrible Sweatshops
As I searched for articles for my Senior Research Paper, I came across a highly descriptive article about sweatshops. It was written in May of 2006 about sweatshops in Jordan, but the informaton is stll valid for U.S. ran sweatshops in different countries. Workers in Jordan would start work at 8 a.m. and leave work around 1 or 2 a.m. which is an inhumane amount of hours to work. To add to those painful hours, one of the many workers was promised $120 a month but only received less than half of one month's salary ($50) over her 5-month work period. REDICULOUS right?! Well, the National Labor Committee(NLC) based in New Yorkwas sent to make a report on more than 25 of 100 garment factories in Jordan and of course found low-working conditions. The NLC arranged interviews for the workers so they could speak on their own behalves about the conditions in which they were working. As if these horrid sweatshop conditions weren't bad enough, they had workers that were trafficked into working! Factory monitors would take away passports and ID's, and change hour and wage records in addition to making the workers lie to inspectors and government. Garment factories like these supply clothing for stores like Wal-mart and Target, and the U.S. management "usually" has no clue about the conditions in which the workers are working.
The economic standpoint on this situation is a matter of profit. This is a high profit-low pay type of system that leaves the workers unable to sufficiently supply for their needs. Systems like these corrupt a nation or country's economy cycle, though corruption may not be blatant, it does exist. In a healthy economic cycle consumers/workers are given enough money (usually enough) to pay for their needs and a few extra things, but if they don't have enough to buy necessities, there is no money cycling through the nation's economy. The companies in the U.S. who utilize these sweatshops suffer no consequences however because their consumers are in America.
On a different note, I often wonder how successful our stores and companies would be if they did not have the sweatshops abroad. My guess is that their profit from the mercahndise would not be as high. What alternative to sweatshops is there? Have our companies like Nike, Target, and Wal-mart become too dependent on their sweatshops located in Jordan, China, and Bangladesh? What is the solution for the poor workers?
Article: http://nytimes.com/2006/05/03/business/worldbusiness/03clothing.html?pagewanted1&sq=u.s.sweatshops&cst=cse&scp=8
Definitions:
*sweatshop-factory employing workers at low wages, for long hours, and under poor conditions
*National Labor Committee- non-profit, non-governmental organization founded in 1981 by David Dyson to combat sweatshop labor
Definitions provided by: dictionary.reference.com and wikipedia.com
The economic standpoint on this situation is a matter of profit. This is a high profit-low pay type of system that leaves the workers unable to sufficiently supply for their needs. Systems like these corrupt a nation or country's economy cycle, though corruption may not be blatant, it does exist. In a healthy economic cycle consumers/workers are given enough money (usually enough) to pay for their needs and a few extra things, but if they don't have enough to buy necessities, there is no money cycling through the nation's economy. The companies in the U.S. who utilize these sweatshops suffer no consequences however because their consumers are in America.
On a different note, I often wonder how successful our stores and companies would be if they did not have the sweatshops abroad. My guess is that their profit from the mercahndise would not be as high. What alternative to sweatshops is there? Have our companies like Nike, Target, and Wal-mart become too dependent on their sweatshops located in Jordan, China, and Bangladesh? What is the solution for the poor workers?
Article: http://nytimes.com/2006/05/03/business/worldbusiness/03clothing.html?pagewanted1&sq=u.s.sweatshops&cst=cse&scp=8
Definitions:
*sweatshop-factory employing workers at low wages, for long hours, and under poor conditions
*National Labor Committee- non-profit, non-governmental organization founded in 1981 by David Dyson to combat sweatshop labor
Definitions provided by: dictionary.reference.com and wikipedia.com
Monday, February 15, 2010
College Students=Cash Cows..is that right?
Terms:
*"Cash Cow: a product, business unit, or consumer that generates unusually high profits, enough to keep less profitable aspects of the business afloat"
*Revenue: total income produced by a given source
*Out-of-State fees: an extra amount of money added to the charge of college tuition for students who live in a different state than where the college is located.
As I continue on my journey to complete my senior year and make sure that I choose the right college for me, I can't help but wonder: "Why is college so expensive ?" We, prospective students, have to pay $35-90 just for the possibility of acceptance and once we get accepted to one, the cost of tuition, room and board, books, etc. are pretty expensive as well. So, this New York Times article caught my attention and answered my question.
(Article: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/15/college-students-the-new-cash-cows/ )
Some students pay more than others for college due to those who receive financial assistance and those who do not. "But the growth of for-profit higher education combined with pressures on state universities to raise more of their own revenue, is intensifying the competition for the students who will pay the most upfront." Since the focus is more on gaining more money rather than the education being provided, the value of the possible diploma and education decline. the cost to enroll is higher than the cost of completion because the focus is on the revenue rather than what theyre supposed to be providing. University of Phoenix, a for-profit institution, has been fined for violating federal regulations and has a 23% graduation rate, which is extremely low. Marketing strategies for state universities have been amp'd up and marketed more towards out-of-state students who pay out of state fees, eventually having more students who are unable to pay the hiked up out of state fees. As the attention is turned toward increasing income, less attention is toward the increasing numbers of students, leaving less teachers to give attention to the large number of students and lower-quality education. There is nothing valuable gained for the student through this for-profit strategy.
We're looking at a corrupted supply and demand process here.
Because colleges are trying to keep their colleges afloat, they're charging more. The demand for college will always be consistently high because most people want a higher education that leads to a higher paying job. Unfortunately, the supply is corrupted. Colleges are supplying a lesser-valued education and teacher-student attention ratio in exchange for profit. The focus needs to be on providing quality education to every student, and have a reasonable cost for the education given. When the price of the college and the supply of quality education are equivalent, the supply and demand will be fixed.
My thoughts are that if colleges provide quality education at a reasonable and affordable price, say around $15,000-23,000(a price including room and board and books) more students will go to college and continue going until graduation. If happens, the colleges will get the money they need and the students will get what they need as well.
Definition of terms provided by: http://dictionary.reference.com
*"Cash Cow: a product, business unit, or consumer that generates unusually high profits, enough to keep less profitable aspects of the business afloat"
*Revenue: total income produced by a given source
*Out-of-State fees: an extra amount of money added to the charge of college tuition for students who live in a different state than where the college is located.
As I continue on my journey to complete my senior year and make sure that I choose the right college for me, I can't help but wonder: "Why is college so expensive ?" We, prospective students, have to pay $35-90 just for the possibility of acceptance and once we get accepted to one, the cost of tuition, room and board, books, etc. are pretty expensive as well. So, this New York Times article caught my attention and answered my question.
(Article: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/15/college-students-the-new-cash-cows/ )
Some students pay more than others for college due to those who receive financial assistance and those who do not. "But the growth of for-profit higher education combined with pressures on state universities to raise more of their own revenue, is intensifying the competition for the students who will pay the most upfront." Since the focus is more on gaining more money rather than the education being provided, the value of the possible diploma and education decline. the cost to enroll is higher than the cost of completion because the focus is on the revenue rather than what theyre supposed to be providing. University of Phoenix, a for-profit institution, has been fined for violating federal regulations and has a 23% graduation rate, which is extremely low. Marketing strategies for state universities have been amp'd up and marketed more towards out-of-state students who pay out of state fees, eventually having more students who are unable to pay the hiked up out of state fees. As the attention is turned toward increasing income, less attention is toward the increasing numbers of students, leaving less teachers to give attention to the large number of students and lower-quality education. There is nothing valuable gained for the student through this for-profit strategy.
We're looking at a corrupted supply and demand process here.
Because colleges are trying to keep their colleges afloat, they're charging more. The demand for college will always be consistently high because most people want a higher education that leads to a higher paying job. Unfortunately, the supply is corrupted. Colleges are supplying a lesser-valued education and teacher-student attention ratio in exchange for profit. The focus needs to be on providing quality education to every student, and have a reasonable cost for the education given. When the price of the college and the supply of quality education are equivalent, the supply and demand will be fixed.
My thoughts are that if colleges provide quality education at a reasonable and affordable price, say around $15,000-23,000(a price including room and board and books) more students will go to college and continue going until graduation. If happens, the colleges will get the money they need and the students will get what they need as well.
Definition of terms provided by: http://dictionary.reference.com
Monday, February 8, 2010
Coupons! Come and Get Your Coupons!!
As it stands, 1992 has been marked "The Year of the Coupon." After 1992, the amount of coupons being used slowly declined over a course of sixteen years. Why? Because of the "relative prosperity, changing demographic trends and manufacturer policies." Consumers who, in 1992, redeemed 79 billion coupons felt a sense of security and independence from the prosperity, but since the recession there has been a change in that sense of security.
Last year was the first year of rising coupon redemption since 1992, having 3.5 billion redeemed. Because of the recession, consumers needed a way to keep the consumerism thriving and to meet their needs. The manufacturers and companies distributed coupons to keep themselves from pit falling and losing business. So in a way, coupons were re-introduced to our economy to stimulate revenue.
Demand is increased as coupons are distributed. People buy more things when they think money is being saved, so as they buy more things, businesses get more money to keep themselves afloat. As businesses become more stable, they can buy more components to make more of their product and fulfill the role of supply. The supply thus feeds the demand and creates a cycle of an improving economy. If we fulffill our role as consumers to keep the economy rolling, we can keep the cycle going.
As we pull out of this recession, could coupons be one of the ways in which our economy grows and improves? I think so. So let's stimulate our economy, get some coupons, help the businesses we love, and keep our pockets happy!
Article:
http://nytimes.com/2010/02/08/business/08drill.html?ref=economy
List of Terms and Their Meanings:
*Demographic-a single vital or social statistic of a human population
*Extrapolated-to estimate outside the observed range
*Revenue- a particular source of income
Last year was the first year of rising coupon redemption since 1992, having 3.5 billion redeemed. Because of the recession, consumers needed a way to keep the consumerism thriving and to meet their needs. The manufacturers and companies distributed coupons to keep themselves from pit falling and losing business. So in a way, coupons were re-introduced to our economy to stimulate revenue.
Demand is increased as coupons are distributed. People buy more things when they think money is being saved, so as they buy more things, businesses get more money to keep themselves afloat. As businesses become more stable, they can buy more components to make more of their product and fulfill the role of supply. The supply thus feeds the demand and creates a cycle of an improving economy. If we fulffill our role as consumers to keep the economy rolling, we can keep the cycle going.
As we pull out of this recession, could coupons be one of the ways in which our economy grows and improves? I think so. So let's stimulate our economy, get some coupons, help the businesses we love, and keep our pockets happy!
Article:
http://nytimes.com/2010/02/08/business/08drill.html?ref=economy
List of Terms and Their Meanings:
*Demographic-a single vital or social statistic of a human population
*Extrapolated-to estimate outside the observed range
*Revenue- a particular source of income
Monday, February 1, 2010
Bridging the Gaps
On January 28, 2010, President Obama gave the State of the Union Address addressing and acknowledging the economic problems of the United States of America. During his entire speech he did not sugar coat anything but he gave us the raw truth about the state of our nation-- that we are still recovering from the recession, many people are still jobless, and people are still vulnerable to poverty.
As I ate my dinner and watched his speech, I realized that not only were the Democrats standing and applauding him, but the Republicans were too! That amazed me. Although this was the first State of the Union Address I have ever watched, my mother, who was watching it with me, noted that applause from both sides was completely unusual and rarely done.
I suppose the details that Obama gave, contrary to his frequent speeches that do not have enough detail, influenced the lot of Congress. In conjunction with his detail, President Obama expressed the changes he has made thus far: 25 tax cuts, cheaper health care for more than 18 million Americans, financial rescue program, the Recovery Act, energy efficiency, building our infrastructure, etc. He even proclaimed that the U.S.A. does not take second place, because as our political system tells his Admininstration that they should hold on to any huge progressive actions , China, Germany, and India are making progressive actions to create clean energy jobs and being energy efficient. Despite what our political system told him and hos administration, he listed the steps he required to have our nation climb out of the rut we are currently in.
As he explained ways to provide more financial support for those who go to college, health care reform, and our budget , he addressed both Democrats and Republicans about the changes we and they had to make together. Unlike previous presidents, President Obama bluntly called the political parties out. He instructed that instead of widening the party lines, they need to bring them together so that they could work in companionship, tackling the economic and other problems facing our nation. In addition instructing party lines to meet, he has made the first steps to closing the communication gap between the people of America and the government. It's about time a president realized the problem with our government. There should not be a seperation from the voice of the people and the words and proposals that come out of the government officials' minds and mouths.
Toward the end, Obama said to the Democrats that since they have the largest majority in decades, people expect them to solve problems and not "run for the hills." And to the Republicans, he expressed that voting according to their party and not for the well-being of the people is not leadership at all, and that they were sent to "serve the citizens and not their ambitions."
Direct statements like those and the detailed plans of improving our nation and the well-being of its citizens, has convinced me that there is hope for a better tomorrow. These things can be accomplished through the bridged gaps of communication between government and citizens, as well as the cooperation between Democrats and Republicans. I agree with Obama, I do not accept second place for the United States of America. Our progress will be determined on how well we(government, citizens, Democrats, and Republicans) cooperate with bridging the gaps.
Link to NYT article "Obama to party: 'Don't Run for the Hills'" : http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/us/politics/28obama.html?ref=politics
As I ate my dinner and watched his speech, I realized that not only were the Democrats standing and applauding him, but the Republicans were too! That amazed me. Although this was the first State of the Union Address I have ever watched, my mother, who was watching it with me, noted that applause from both sides was completely unusual and rarely done.
I suppose the details that Obama gave, contrary to his frequent speeches that do not have enough detail, influenced the lot of Congress. In conjunction with his detail, President Obama expressed the changes he has made thus far: 25 tax cuts, cheaper health care for more than 18 million Americans, financial rescue program, the Recovery Act, energy efficiency, building our infrastructure, etc. He even proclaimed that the U.S.A. does not take second place, because as our political system tells his Admininstration that they should hold on to any huge progressive actions , China, Germany, and India are making progressive actions to create clean energy jobs and being energy efficient. Despite what our political system told him and hos administration, he listed the steps he required to have our nation climb out of the rut we are currently in.
As he explained ways to provide more financial support for those who go to college, health care reform, and our budget , he addressed both Democrats and Republicans about the changes we and they had to make together. Unlike previous presidents, President Obama bluntly called the political parties out. He instructed that instead of widening the party lines, they need to bring them together so that they could work in companionship, tackling the economic and other problems facing our nation. In addition instructing party lines to meet, he has made the first steps to closing the communication gap between the people of America and the government. It's about time a president realized the problem with our government. There should not be a seperation from the voice of the people and the words and proposals that come out of the government officials' minds and mouths.
Toward the end, Obama said to the Democrats that since they have the largest majority in decades, people expect them to solve problems and not "run for the hills." And to the Republicans, he expressed that voting according to their party and not for the well-being of the people is not leadership at all, and that they were sent to "serve the citizens and not their ambitions."
Direct statements like those and the detailed plans of improving our nation and the well-being of its citizens, has convinced me that there is hope for a better tomorrow. These things can be accomplished through the bridged gaps of communication between government and citizens, as well as the cooperation between Democrats and Republicans. I agree with Obama, I do not accept second place for the United States of America. Our progress will be determined on how well we(government, citizens, Democrats, and Republicans) cooperate with bridging the gaps.
Link to NYT article "Obama to party: 'Don't Run for the Hills'" : http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/us/politics/28obama.html?ref=politics
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
