S. 242: Guardians of Freedom Act of 2011
S. 1025: National Guard Empowerment and State-National Defense Integration Act of 2011
S. 1228: Combating Military Counterfeits Act of 2011
These are from Alex Ramos.
I would like to write about the H.R. 1299: Secure Border Act of 2011 bill.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
National Debt
If we continue to accumulate debt at the rate that we are, how much debt will America have by 2020? There are some rather scary projections about the United States national debt in 2020. One report says 20 trillion dollars. "By 2019, the national debt will increase to nearly 70 percent of GDP, up from 48 percent this year, the White House predicts." These numbers are far too large and need to be solved. Another source says 90 percent of GDP. The numbers vary but there is one thing in common, they are huge.
Why does it have to be cut spending or increase taxes, why cant it be both?
I think this is mainly based on political ideology. The perfect balance would probably be a mixture of both, but extremes on both ends do not want to give up any ground and "give in " to the other side. There is only two ways to lower the debt bring in more money or spend less, so the rest is up to you to decide what the best way is to lower the debt while not destroying the economy or hurting the quality of life too much. (I do not have any sources for this because it doesn't serve well for sources)
What is a good balance between spending cuts and tax increases that will lower the debt?
I think this is also an opinion based question so sources would not help prove the point. Different people have "facts" for both sides, so really it is other's opinions. I think the best balance would be about 75% spending cuts and 25% tax increases. I think this because if there is spending cuts the money that is in the free market is the same, but if there were tax increases there is less money to be spent by the people.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/aug2009/debt-a28.shtml
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/26/cbos-2020-vision-debt-will-rise-to-90-of-gdp/?page=all
Why does it have to be cut spending or increase taxes, why cant it be both?
I think this is mainly based on political ideology. The perfect balance would probably be a mixture of both, but extremes on both ends do not want to give up any ground and "give in " to the other side. There is only two ways to lower the debt bring in more money or spend less, so the rest is up to you to decide what the best way is to lower the debt while not destroying the economy or hurting the quality of life too much. (I do not have any sources for this because it doesn't serve well for sources)
What is a good balance between spending cuts and tax increases that will lower the debt?
I think this is also an opinion based question so sources would not help prove the point. Different people have "facts" for both sides, so really it is other's opinions. I think the best balance would be about 75% spending cuts and 25% tax increases. I think this because if there is spending cuts the money that is in the free market is the same, but if there were tax increases there is less money to be spent by the people.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/aug2009/debt-a28.shtml
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/26/cbos-2020-vision-debt-will-rise-to-90-of-gdp/?page=all
Political Cartoon
Do the Occupy "members" take everything the government does for granted?
What is the symbolism between the large ships and the small person?
What affect has Occupy really had?
Electoral College Reform
1. Americans have trouble grasping the fact that the president is elected by the electoral college, not the popular vote.
2. Election day is always the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
3. Most times the winner of the election can be determined that night, but the 2000 election took 36 days.
4. The electoral college never meets, it is not a single entity.
5. The existence of the electoral college usually undermines third parties.
6. If there was no electoral college, a president would be more likely to have less than 50% of the votes.
7. There has been at least 700 proposed amendments to change the electoral college.
8. Hilliary Clinton was the most recent. (as of the time that this was written)
9. Both candidates could promise to only go by the popular vote to bypass Congress.
10. Ten states account for 54% of the population as of 2000.
1. Will there be any real changes to the electoral college?
2. The author often says "we", who does this represent?
3. Has any candidates ever talked about only using the popular vote?
4. How would changes in the electoral college affect the number of voters on election day?
5. Should area be a factor in electoral votes? Alaska would mess that up though.
I think the electoral college should be abolished. Then the candidates would have to focus on more areas than the swing states. Also, the real voice of the people would be heard.
2. Election day is always the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
3. Most times the winner of the election can be determined that night, but the 2000 election took 36 days.
4. The electoral college never meets, it is not a single entity.
5. The existence of the electoral college usually undermines third parties.
6. If there was no electoral college, a president would be more likely to have less than 50% of the votes.
7. There has been at least 700 proposed amendments to change the electoral college.
8. Hilliary Clinton was the most recent. (as of the time that this was written)
9. Both candidates could promise to only go by the popular vote to bypass Congress.
10. Ten states account for 54% of the population as of 2000.
1. Will there be any real changes to the electoral college?
2. The author often says "we", who does this represent?
3. Has any candidates ever talked about only using the popular vote?
4. How would changes in the electoral college affect the number of voters on election day?
5. Should area be a factor in electoral votes? Alaska would mess that up though.
I think the electoral college should be abolished. Then the candidates would have to focus on more areas than the swing states. Also, the real voice of the people would be heard.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Budget Puzzle
How much did you save? 2015- 418 billion, 2030- 1.268 trillion
What % came from tax increases? 16%
What % came from spending cuts? 84%
Choices that were easy were increasing the age of Medicare and Social Security. The easiest was capping Medicare growth starting in 2013. A harder decision was to cut the number of troops to 30,000 in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Congress has to have people vote on everything and many times it is a very slow progress. It could also be overturned by a future Congress.
What % came from tax increases? 16%
What % came from spending cuts? 84%
Choices that were easy were increasing the age of Medicare and Social Security. The easiest was capping Medicare growth starting in 2013. A harder decision was to cut the number of troops to 30,000 in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Congress has to have people vote on everything and many times it is a very slow progress. It could also be overturned by a future Congress.
Terry Gross interview
1. People can be tracked by technology, like cell phones.
2. There are no amendments that say anything about technology.
3. There have been questions about the GPS's that police can put on the bottom of cars.
4. The 4th amendment is used right now to answer the technology question.
5. In the past, if it was in public surveillance were allowed.
6. Some say that a trespass does not have to be physical to need a warrant.
7. There was talk of Facebook or Google streaming cameras, which could allow people to "stalk" other's every move.
8. Facebook is not covered by the Constitution because the Constitution is for government.
9. The Constitution was written in a time of no cell phones or cameras, so some say it needs a translation to modern day.
10. There was an outcry in Germany when Google tried to record for street view shots.
1. Will there be any amendments to resolve this issue?
2. Will the GPS case set a precedent?
3. Will Google or Facebook ever stream surveillance?
4. How do most people feel about surveillance?
5. How many lives have been saved because of surveillance catching terrorists?
2. There are no amendments that say anything about technology.
3. There have been questions about the GPS's that police can put on the bottom of cars.
4. The 4th amendment is used right now to answer the technology question.
5. In the past, if it was in public surveillance were allowed.
6. Some say that a trespass does not have to be physical to need a warrant.
7. There was talk of Facebook or Google streaming cameras, which could allow people to "stalk" other's every move.
8. Facebook is not covered by the Constitution because the Constitution is for government.
9. The Constitution was written in a time of no cell phones or cameras, so some say it needs a translation to modern day.
10. There was an outcry in Germany when Google tried to record for street view shots.
1. Will there be any amendments to resolve this issue?
2. Will the GPS case set a precedent?
3. Will Google or Facebook ever stream surveillance?
4. How do most people feel about surveillance?
5. How many lives have been saved because of surveillance catching terrorists?
Dwight Eisenhower
1. If you have military experience, use it to your advantage.
2. Always remember that the you have a lot of power regarding the Supreme Court. (He elected Warren has Chief Justice and regretted it.
3. A good character will help in global issues, as well as domestic.
4. Strong leadership can protect a country.
5. Do not be afraid to use your weapons to your advantage.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/character/essays/eisenhower.html
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAeisenhower.htm
http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/Ike/ike.htm
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/dwight_eisenhower.htm
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Cartoon
Who does the man of the left represent?
Why is this ironic?
What do you think should be done about Iran and nuclear weapons?
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Campaign Ads
This ad uses repetition. I personally thin this works, but not for this ad. The ending line was powerful also.
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1984
This is a great ad. This is a true ad on what would happen if the Ayatollah could vote. I think this is good because it brings in big world issues to an ad.
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1980
Using creative names for themselves and flashing facts across the screen. I think this is a little funny just because they are saying they are mavericks.
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2008
The drums and flashing colors and facts are used in this ad. I think it is effective.
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1996
The music and voice in the background. I think this is effective.
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2008
Listing many great things in a row. I think this is effective.
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2008
Overall, political ads do very little to actually inform the voters. I agree with this, ads show 30 seconds of facts that more than likely distorted in some way.
They said that they found the ads are persuasive. I also agree with this because many people vote solely based off of TV ads, which is pretty sad.
They also said that these ads will not make "better" democratic results.
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1984
This is a great ad. This is a true ad on what would happen if the Ayatollah could vote. I think this is good because it brings in big world issues to an ad.
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1980
Using creative names for themselves and flashing facts across the screen. I think this is a little funny just because they are saying they are mavericks.
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2008
The drums and flashing colors and facts are used in this ad. I think it is effective.
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1996
The music and voice in the background. I think this is effective.
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2008
Listing many great things in a row. I think this is effective.
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2008
Overall, political ads do very little to actually inform the voters. I agree with this, ads show 30 seconds of facts that more than likely distorted in some way.
They said that they found the ads are persuasive. I also agree with this because many people vote solely based off of TV ads, which is pretty sad.
They also said that these ads will not make "better" democratic results.
Electoral College
1. Malapportionment is in many governments, including the United States.
2. The Electoral College was ideal when it was made because it kept the balance among the states without giving the election of the President to Congress. This way the people had more power.
3. If the electoral college were replaced by direct election, more independents could have a chance to win.
4. If three of Bush's electors voted for Gore, the vote would have been 269 to 268 in Gore's favor. This could be an example of why to switch.
5. Washington was the only one who foresaw a two party system.
6. The Electoral College makes it so the candidate only needs to visit the swing states.
7. Richard Nixon would have beaten Kennedy if there was a popular vote.
8. Gore would have won if there was a popular vote. He got .5 million more votes than Bush.
9. Since 2000, many states have passed laws requiring electors to honor their pledge to the candidate who selected them.
10. The electoral college shows how the Founding Fathers wanted to put a bumper in between government and citizens.
1. Madison warned of factions, did he think political parties would come about?
2. Will there be a slow change towards popular vote for president?
3. How would changes affect who runs and the results of future elections?
4. What can be changed to ensure that candidates must focus on all states?
5. Will PA change soon?
2. The Electoral College was ideal when it was made because it kept the balance among the states without giving the election of the President to Congress. This way the people had more power.
3. If the electoral college were replaced by direct election, more independents could have a chance to win.
4. If three of Bush's electors voted for Gore, the vote would have been 269 to 268 in Gore's favor. This could be an example of why to switch.
5. Washington was the only one who foresaw a two party system.
6. The Electoral College makes it so the candidate only needs to visit the swing states.
7. Richard Nixon would have beaten Kennedy if there was a popular vote.
8. Gore would have won if there was a popular vote. He got .5 million more votes than Bush.
9. Since 2000, many states have passed laws requiring electors to honor their pledge to the candidate who selected them.
10. The electoral college shows how the Founding Fathers wanted to put a bumper in between government and citizens.
1. Madison warned of factions, did he think political parties would come about?
2. Will there be a slow change towards popular vote for president?
3. How would changes affect who runs and the results of future elections?
4. What can be changed to ensure that candidates must focus on all states?
5. Will PA change soon?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)