tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065930044872741375.post3784901749312180115..comments2023-06-21T09:25:35.299-04:00Comments on C&E Current Events Blog: Current Event, due April 22ndMs. Loganhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06108383017239186239noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065930044872741375.post-44543730164292935192011-04-23T00:52:03.744-04:002011-04-23T00:52:03.744-04:00http://www.oyetimes.com/business/44-markets/10679-...http://www.oyetimes.com/business/44-markets/10679-the-macroeconomics-of-oil-supply-and-demand-ignoring-the-background-noise<br />By: Alex Grosskurth<br />period 6<br />Oil prices have been going higher and higher recently. When it used to be 3.20 a gallon its now almost four dollars a gallon. China has begun using more oil, before they would buy ten million barrels a day, now its 10.2 million barrels each day. China also consumes more per capita than the United States. China's recent consumption hike is due to the fact that they use petroleum much more because some of their coal plants were shut down. China has become the main consumer of gas in the world, and its hard to meet the world's demand with all the oil being demanded. The IEA has said that every country with oil is going to have to do more work and by the year 2035 we will begin using less oil and we will slowly use less and less. China has begun to prepare for this by creating a storage facility that can hold 281 million barrels of oil.<br /><br />Oil and oil prices are definitely serious problems in our world right now. Oil is a limited resource and we cant take it for granted and we need to look for alternatives before its too late. If the only time they predict that we will begin using less oil is 2035, theres a problem. Continually drilling for oil is not going to help us either. No matter how much oil we find, it still doesn't aid the enviornmental aspect of the problem. We need to invest in clean energy so that gas price fluctuations won't affect us nearly as much as this in the future.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04466874118983334937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065930044872741375.post-1456357657303799382011-04-22T15:24:16.062-04:002011-04-22T15:24:16.062-04:00Julie Wulforst
Period 6
http://money.cnn.com/2011/...Julie Wulforst<br />Period 6<br />http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/21/markets/oil_gas_prices/index.htm<br /><br />Gases have been increasing dramatically over the last few months. The weird thing is, gas prices are only 7% than the all time high, while oil prices are 24% lower than the all time high! So we ask, why is gasoline so expensive, when oil is so far off its record price? The answer is the price of oil has very little immediate effect on the price we pay at the pump. Gas and oil prices do not go hand in hand, and the price of gas is often a few weeks behind the price of oil. Currently we're buying a gallon of gas for 78 cents more than what refiners are paying for a gallon of oil. Over the last 29 days, the average price of gas in America has risen 29 cents.<br /><br />This relates to what we've been studying in class because it is about a limited resource, scarcity, and a market in which there are only a few providers. The price of gas really effects the whole economy because people won't do things like make unneccessary trips to the mall "just because", or travel unless they have to. This summer, gas is expected to surpass $4 a gallon, and the amount of travel will decrease immensely. Our nation, as well as the entire world, really need to come up with alternative solutions to gasoline, for the economy and for the enviroment.Juliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00398940075342864126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065930044872741375.post-2236634823367117582011-04-22T13:58:17.325-04:002011-04-22T13:58:17.325-04:00http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/22/us/22poll.html?_...http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/22/us/22poll.html?_r=1&ref=unitedstateseconomy<br /><br />Jackson Wright<br />6th period<br />4/22/11<br /><br />Recent polls In the country show that people have their morales at an all time low under the current economic conditions. Latest polls have shown that amid rising gas prices, bad unemployment, and unrelenting budget debate, he united states citizens are not happy. Much of the country has disapproved Of how Obama has handled latest economic issues and are waiting for an upturn to help out their morale.<br /><br />I do not believe that people of the states understand that this is not Obama's fault as he has done his best to pull us out of this economic recession he was thrown in to. George W Bush run a surplus into a huge deficit with his terrible administration and Obama now has to pull us out of it. I think Obama is doing his best and is a good leader doing his best.jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01609280074886054153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065930044872741375.post-59728930817329733092011-04-22T13:16:57.445-04:002011-04-22T13:16:57.445-04:00Eric Plevy
P6
4/22/11
http://money.cnn.com/2011/04...Eric Plevy<br />P6<br />4/22/11<br />http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/19/news/economy/ceo_pay/index.htm<br /><br />CEO’s now earn around 343 times more than the average worker. AFL-CIO has discovered a 23% increase in the pay of CEO’s from 2009 to 2010. Other companies, such as paywatch.org, plan to eventually gather statistics from all 500 companies. This organization is run by the union and wants to exploit the economic gap between CEOs and workers. This awareness can help to raise the wages of hard workers.<br />Although a CEO may have a high up position in a company, they do not have to do the intense labor that the average worker must perform. It is completely unfair that one who does more work is payed less. There are more lower clansmen than upperclassmen. The government is meant to content the majority, and in this case, would be the workers. I believe it is truly unfair that our country pays the lesser-working minority more than the harder-working majority. I would not blame underpaid workers to go on strike in order to receive the money they deserve. This relates to what we are doing since unions are trying to raise awareness in order to gain higher salaries that CEOs are stealing from these hard workers. The importance of this is that these workers could easily go on strike and could trigger a national strike amongst workers uniting to fight the high wages that CEOs recieve but may not deserve. Without properly functioning companies, there cannot be a properly functioning country.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03829016753515996017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065930044872741375.post-72455467568340340852011-04-22T12:53:39.689-04:002011-04-22T12:53:39.689-04:00Sam Freedberg
6th Period
4/22/11
http://www.cnn.co...Sam Freedberg<br />6th Period<br />4/22/11<br />http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/04/21/holder.gas.prices/index.html<br />Prodded by growing public frustration over sharply rising gasoline prices, the Justice Department on Thursday announced the formation of a team -- the "Oil and Gas Price Fraud Working Group -- tasked with the goal of ensuring consumers are not victims of price gouging.<br />Gas prices exceeding $4 per gallon or higher are "tough" for most Americans, President Barack Obama told an audience in Reno, Nevada. "We are going to make sure that no one is taking advantage of American consumers for their own short-term gain."<br />"This gas issue is serious," the president said. "It hurts."<br /><br />I think that these gas prices are really hurting America. right now, we need to be putting everything we can into alternative energy sources because $5 a gallon is ridiculous. I think this group will accomplish something and hopefully save America from extremely high gas pricesUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17800895631360650492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065930044872741375.post-76875604870701995212011-04-22T12:48:23.161-04:002011-04-22T12:48:23.161-04:00http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/the-w...http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/the-world-economy-shifts-eastward/?scp=5&sq=economy&st=cse<br /><br />According to economist Professor Dany Quah's calculations, "'the average location of economic activity' ... has been moving further east". This "center of gravity" was aruond the Mid-Atlantic in 1980 but has since moved, as a result of East Asia's economic success, towards eastern Europe around Helsinki and Bucharest. Professor Quah predicts this "center" to be in Indochina by 2050.<br />I think that the ability to predict where the world's economic center is is interesting. Using this, businesses can plan where to center efforts for different branches of their companies. This is also useful because this aspect of the economy is not totally unpredictable, a concept that frightens many people.Jacobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00000411589666066325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065930044872741375.post-71408272329422905802011-04-22T12:48:00.762-04:002011-04-22T12:48:00.762-04:00Tanner Gardner-7th Period
http://www.sfgate.com/cg...Tanner Gardner-7th Period<br />http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/04/21/benzinga1024268.DTL<br /><br />President Obama proffered his opinion on rising oil prices at a speech in Virginia. <br />"It is true that a lot of what's driving oil prices up right now is not the lack of supply. There's enough supply. There's enough oil out there for world demand," Obama said. But <br />If supply is solid and demand is solid, how can it be that oil prices are skyrocketing? <br />"The problem is ... speculators and people make various bets, and they say, you know what, we think that maybe there's a 20 percent chance that something might happen in the Middle East that might disrupt oil supply, so we're going to bet that oil is going to go up real high. And that spikes up prices significantly." One possible explanation for higher prices is <br />fluxuation of costs can also cause economic losses when macroeconomic frictions prevent rapid changes in prices for final goods or for key inputs, such as wages. When a nominal increase in oil prices threatens purchasing power, the adjustment process is slowed, with multiplier effects throughout the economy. <br />Considering the harm to the American economy that high oil prices bring, and considering the attention that the administration is now paying to speculators, might changes be on the way? Following the 2008 oil price boom, when crude hit $136 a barrel and gas hovered above $4 a gallon, Congress introduced nine bills to end speculation. It is unknown whether the Obama Administration or the divided Congress has plans to take up the matter, presumably after the budget talks are ended.<br /><br />I wonder if Obama is keeping troops lingering in the Middle East to keep the oil supply steady and in turn our economy. Maybe that's why he's not making good on his promise to withdraw US forces. It seems like the masses are conditioned to not even question whether we even need oil, just what the prices should be. Their minds are boxed in. I think we should follow the example of the place where this article came from: San Francisco. Car protests have been held there since the 70's. There’s something to be said for local public transportation.Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01434112186499773951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065930044872741375.post-72451547714156709742011-04-22T09:19:06.640-04:002011-04-22T09:19:06.640-04:00http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/weekinreview/17d...http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/weekinreview/17deficit.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=the%20budget&st=Search <br /><br />The budget debate that became fully engaged last week is about far more than accounting and arcane policy disputes. What is under way now is the most fundamental reassessment of the size and role of government. It deals with the balance between personal responsibility and private markets on the one hand and public responsibility and social welfare on the other. The Democratic and Republican Parties have their own internal tensions to address as the debate goes forward in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail, but in its early stages at least, its liberals who are on the defensive. The aging of the baby boom generation and the costs of maintaining Medicare and Social Security have put the two pillars of the social welfare system on the table for re-examination. The growing weight of the national debt has given urgency to the question of whether the government has become too big and expensive. <br /><br />The only way we can really reduce our debt is cut federal spending. The only reason the government is becoming too big and expensive is because we are using our money on these huge ideas when we are deep in debt. I’m not discouraging new ideas, but I’m just saying that we should not be focusing on them in a time like this. We need to stop focusing on certain programs or at least reduce the funding of them because right now we don’t have the money to support them or spend more money on them. We can always raise taxes, but it will help more if we reduce the budget and not pay more than we have been paying. It would be even better if we just use less money.<br /><br />Chris Barth<br />P.7Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04335256623382270175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065930044872741375.post-23181534933690861502011-04-22T07:43:33.546-04:002011-04-22T07:43:33.546-04:00http://blog.aflcio.org/2011/04/21/global-union-mov...http://blog.aflcio.org/2011/04/21/global-union-movement-calls-for-end-to-repression-in-bahrain/<br /><br />Hannah Blackburn <br />7th pd. <br /><br /> Political turmoil in Bahrain has taken a toll on union workers. The government is moving quickly to a totalitarian state. Bahrain's oppressive government is firing General Federation of Bahraini Trade Unions (GFBTU) members: 750 union workers and half the union leaders have been fired. The International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) said in a report that even more union workers have been fired for being involved in union activities to support peace and democracy. Yesterday, the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) filed a complaint that Bahrain violated the US-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement by attacking union workers and firing union members for peaceful protests. The UN is getting involved, too, by sending a mission from the International Labor Organization to talk with Bahrain's president about the attacks on union members. <br /><br /> It makes strategic sense for Bahrain's president to attempt to eradicate the unions if he wants complete power. In any totalitarian state, a group of people with a common purpose and goal is a threat to the regime. Thankfully, there are so many groups going to Bahrain to investigate and, in some cases, speak with the president. I think unions are great ways to protect workers from major abuse. Unions might be able to help a lot in third world countries where child labor is a problem. The union could help rat out companies who use child labor, and could help the unemployed find work.Ginny Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11847406585584090414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065930044872741375.post-11888724869587769452011-04-22T07:42:24.365-04:002011-04-22T07:42:24.365-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Ginny Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11847406585584090414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065930044872741375.post-42437670121584405042011-04-22T06:49:23.182-04:002011-04-22T06:49:23.182-04:00http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/22/us/22newhampshir...http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/22/us/22newhampshire.html?ref=us<br /><br />New Hampshire’s Senate voted Wednesday to pass the bill which overturns collective bargaining and turns the state into a right-to-work state. This makes it the first in New England to be right-to-work. Senator Raymond White, a Republican, said that he believed that the issue is about freedom of choice over paying union dues. Mark MacKenzie, president of the New Hampshire American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations, said that it was an attack on the middle class’s ability to negotiate in a state which has not been hit that hard by the recession. The bill is expected to be vetoed by the governor and then overridden by legislators, making it New Hampshire law.<br /><br />This is exactly what we talked about in class. The right-to-work states do not require union membership, and therefore the unions are much less powerful. Republicans in majority are now doing everything they can to weaken the unions, as that is not one of the ideals they support. I believe that workers need a way to stick up for their own rights. I do not know if the way they currently go about it is the best way, through collective bargaining, etc. but we cannot let our workers fall into poverty. I think that in the Republicans’ zeal to jump the economy they are leaving some of the lower class members of our population behind. Perhaps these new laws will help businesses do better, but the average middle class consumer will now have more trouble paying for the goods and will have to spend less. This is exactly the opposite of what our economy needs.<br /><br />Chiara SalemiChiarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07087844368788122975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065930044872741375.post-34901344252209848912011-04-22T01:24:09.249-04:002011-04-22T01:24:09.249-04:00http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/opinion/20wed1.h...http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/opinion/20wed1.html?scp=1&sq=budget&st=cse<br /> In the budget cutting plan, Republicans have demanded harsh sacrifices from most vulnerable citizens,but they also decided to leave a big,wasteful government spending:the Pentagon budget.For the military spending,it turns to be $7.5 trillion over the next dozen years (does not include the spending on fighting), president Obama was going to take $7.1 instead, however, those $4 billions are necessary,even though the country doesn't need to fight big wars, additionally, the country cannot afford more than that.<br /> I felt nervous every time I read the things about the unbalanced budget and the excess deficit---the national debt is increasing tremendously,I really hope President Obama's new budget plan would slow down that rate,even though it's a whole lot of money again in his new plan. The annual budget has grown by 50% in the past decade, and it's even more than those from the $1 trillion spent on operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. We all know that the previous president, George Bush, has indeed left many of the budget problems to Obama once he retired,his tax cutting is considered "politically smart but not economic smart", should people put most of the blame in Republicans? Since they try to make high rank people of the society to become more dominant,and caused the unbalanced budget,too much deficits, and put American economy on risk? We may not know(even though you want to blame republican), I don't know if the government shutdown this time could help much about saving the money.<br />Jessica Yin<br />7th periodJessicahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14533777298796999895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065930044872741375.post-29750546526847401602011-04-22T00:39:14.784-04:002011-04-22T00:39:14.784-04:00http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/business/global/...http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/business/global/21gold.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&ref=economy&adxnnlx=1303359477-IkroImPmo14WBkmhPrc37w<br /><br />Gold prices have recently surged upward, reaching $1,500 per ounce for the first time on Wednesday. Other metals, such as platinum and silver, have also seen a price increase. The increased prices of precious metals can be attributed to multiple reasons, including inflation, the turmoil occurring in the Middle East and North Africa, the unstable US budget, and unsustainable debt levels in European countries. The unstable economy and the resulting inflation have propelled many people to search for more reliable and tangible wealth in the form of precious medals. In addition, it is wedding season in India, and it is imperative that the bride receive gold gifts, wear gold jewelry, and shop for gold accessories.<br /><br />The rising global gold prices contributes to macroeconomics, a concept we have been studying in class. An undependable economy oftentimes causes concern over paper money (which used to be backed up by gold) and its worth. People find comfort in the fact that gold and other precious medals have a solid value, and will invest in them as a means of redirecting their wealth from the unstable value of paper money. <br /><br />Maria Yao, 6thMariahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14978697087640024694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065930044872741375.post-50526241029700653582011-04-21T23:45:38.323-04:002011-04-21T23:45:38.323-04:00http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/04/20/...http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/04/20/Extreme-Weather-Tornadoes-Rev-Up-Insurance-Costs.aspx?p=1<br /><br />Tristin Van Ord<br /><br />More than 245 tornados made their way to some southern states last weekend. They left behind a nasty trail of 45 deaths and hundreds of homes left in the dust. Oklahoma, Texas, and North Carolina suffered the most. Thousands of insurance claims have been pouring in, possibly raising homeowner’s costs for everybody. In one insurance company alone, State Farm in North Carolina, has gotten about 7, 400 homeowner’s claims and about 2, 800 for cars. Some people are estimating that these natural disasters in the south have cost HUNDREDS of millions of dollars of damage. Insurance companies are paying for many recent disasters in the US such as the icy storms that blew through in the winter, and wildfires that have been burning in the west. Last year it cost State Farm 3.2 Billion dollars for hail and wind damage. Insurance companies are prepared for these instant catastrophes but it does make the companies nervous. After disasters, rates tend to go up. <br /><br />I think that this is so sad, especially considering these tornados took place in North Carolina! I wasn’t in town this weekend, but when I was watching the news I was shocked to hear about all the damage that these storms caused. 45 deaths from tornados is so sad, and I hope everyone who lost a family member or friend is doing all right. I think it is so devastating to see that thousands of claims have come in for people who have lost their homes and cars. Hundreds of millions of dollars of damage has taken place in our own country and we need to fix this. I also think insurance companies are a bit sleezy. I know they are just being smart and trying to earn the most money that they can, but I mean really. For an example in the article it said that an insurance company claimed that some houses in Katrina were damaged from flooding, (which the company did not cover,) not the wind. Insurance companies need to get their butts in there and help. This article relates to what we have been learning because it has to do with consumers (people who buy insurance) do in certain situations and what the producers (insurance companies) do in certain situations. AKA economics :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065930044872741375.post-81171565157459002772011-04-21T23:37:34.353-04:002011-04-21T23:37:34.353-04:00Jenny Vaughn
Period 6
http://finance.fortune.cnn....Jenny Vaughn <br />Period 6<br />http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/04/18/gas-spike-tab-hits-100-billion/<br /><br />Economists expect that an increase in gas prices during this holiday season will hurt an already limping economy. They are afraid that an average $3.83 a gallon will discourage consumers from buying as much goods as they normally would during the holiday season. In 2011 alone, gas prices have increased by 70 cents which is taking 100 billion dollars from American households. The first-quarter gross domestic product growth expectation was dropped to 1.75%. That's down from 2.5% two weeks ago and 3.5% from last month. Still, some remain optimistic due to increased hiring and better wages. It is said that to stimulate the economy, we should lower gas prices, more jobs, and slightly lower prices of goods. In any situation, we will be facing this problem for a while. <br /><br />I believe that oil companies are taking advantage of the dependence of people on their cars in this rough economy. If they lowered their gas prices, the whole economy would benefit. Consumers are already weary, even though it is a holiday season, and this discourages them even more. The gas companies would benefit more in the long run if they did this because the overall economy would be better and people could afford more money to spend on things like gas.jennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12947844176123185568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065930044872741375.post-73478501374542792292011-04-21T23:19:26.334-04:002011-04-21T23:19:26.334-04:00Jay Htut
6th Period
http://finance.fortune.cnn.co...Jay Htut<br />6th Period<br /><br />http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/04/21/stingy-megabanks-swimming-in-cash/<br /><br />"Stingy megabanks swimming in cash"<br /><br />The loan books of our Nations Mega Banks are decreasing. Bank of America says that it loaned $144 Billion in the past year, while Wells Fargo loaned $151 Billion, and JP Morgan Chase lended $450 Billion. Although this may seem like big numbers, the total of amount of money the Mega Banks have loaned this year has dropped $210 Billion, which is approximately about 7%. What does this mean exactly? It means that this is another obstacle standing in the way of the U.S. financial debt crisis. Without the luxury of loans provided by Banks, the economy cannot fully allow itself to grow. <br /><br />I think that this issue will hurt our economy in the long run. It will take a while for us to expierence the change, but i think that the impact will be big. Without loans, new businesses and firms cannot get off their feet. They need the initial push that money provides, which would allow them to grow and expand. Without $210 Billion of loans, new businesses and firms cannot grow, which will hurt our economy in the future.Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03148503390806676156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065930044872741375.post-70794383043577736932011-04-21T23:16:20.702-04:002011-04-21T23:16:20.702-04:00Geoff Thomason – 4/21/11 – Period 7
http://www.nyt...Geoff Thomason – 4/21/11 – Period 7<br />http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/13/business/economy/13leonhardt.html?_r=1&ref=economy<br /><br /> Many economists believe that the very best way to reduce the budget deficit is for Congress to do absolutely nothing. That’s right; many economists believe that if Congress were to take no action in upcoming years, our budget deficit would shrink and shrink a lot. According to current federal law, there are a few significant tax increases scheduled to be put into effect in the near future. The largest of these is the expiration of the Bush tax cuts at the end of 2012. The tax increase that should be provided by the expiration of the Bush tax cuts has long been awaited by some, and even fought by others. Both parties still prefer a permanent extension of most of those tax cuts. Mainly the ones dealing with sub-$250,000 in income. Many economists suspect that both of the parties established a connection between the Bush tax cuts and their opposition for massive military cuts along with Social Security and Medicare. Economists partially feel that Congress is biased based on a link between these two subjects of tax cuts and that the link is preventing a tax increase.<br /> First of all, how would Congress doing nothing possibly help our situation?? I’m not sure. I feel that if we attempt to function as a ‘nation’ without a Congress, then we will be reduced to chaos and the odds of us ever ‘welcoming’ Congress back will be in the hands of Anarchy. I also feel that a tax increase is really needed and if possible, to move up the expiration of the Bush Tax cuts. It was wrong to cut taxes during a war, and right now, we need to increase taxes and increase them sooner rather than later.Geoffreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00302809698206389587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065930044872741375.post-54677978001909028072011-04-21T23:03:52.097-04:002011-04-21T23:03:52.097-04:00Ariel Gunn
Period 7
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/...Ariel Gunn <br />Period 7<br /><br />http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/22/us/22poll.html?_r=1&hp <br /><br />Overall our nations mood concerning the economy is worse than its been since Obama came into office. All the optimism from earlier this year about a recovery being underway is now gone. A study shows 13 percent more of Americans unhappy because of the economy, just since last month. The public mood is even pulling down the ratings of Obama and congress members. In general people also seem to prefer cutting spending rather than increases taxes to pay for our spending. <br /><br />I'm not too surprised by this, seeing as the budget has been so public recently, most years you don't hear about it too much but this year was different. People knew how stressful it was this year and I think that's strongly affecting people. I think that the lower ratings may help the people, the politicians want to be liked and re-elected, so they try to make the people happy. I think it's sad that overall our country is becoming so unhappy.Arihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11457289816876844373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065930044872741375.post-2940789119682382252011-04-21T22:55:07.604-04:002011-04-21T22:55:07.604-04:00Thomas Nguyen
4.21.11 Period 7
http://money.cnn.co...Thomas Nguyen<br />4.21.11 Period 7<br />http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/21/news/economy/pentagon_budget/index.htm<br /><br /><br />Lawmakers slashed funding for almost every government agency, except the Pentagon. The Pentagon spending has doubled since 2001, spending $700 billion in 2010. With higher deficits looming ahead, slashing money given to the Pentagon is imminent. Last week, President Obama outlined a new plan that would cut security/defense costs by at least $400 billion by 2023. Some proposed plans have the Pentagon cutting their spending by $1 trillion within the next 10 years or so. Gordon Adams, a former Clinton Administration budget official, believes that Pentagon cuts will actually be closer to $1 trillion than the $400 billion Obama proposed. Even with these cuts, the US should retain its status as the country with the best military.<br /><br /><br />I think that we definitely should cut funding for the Pentagon, but the question is how much? If we cut too much money, our defense and security are weakened, allowing a possible terrorist attack to happen on our soil. If we don't cut enough, our deficit will rise. For now, I think we should reform Medicare and Medicaid. They require at least 30% of our budget. With baby-boomers ahead, that could rise to over 40%. I think we should not be fighting any wars right now because of our economic situation. I think the military has to find ways of targeting/killing terrorists while saving money that could be used for something else. We haven't entirely gone into macroeconomics, but we did look at a graph that showed money distribution to the different sectors of the government. Our two top priorities are senior benefits and defense.Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10692266940496303648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065930044872741375.post-43144693381429071982011-04-21T22:39:19.660-04:002011-04-21T22:39:19.660-04:00http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110421/pl_afp/usecon...http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110421/pl_afp/useconomydebtpolitics<br /><br />Today the White House accused the Republicans of risking a global recession by not agreeing to raising the US debt ceiling unless there are huge spending cuts with it. Obama's spokesman said Obama's trying to compromise which would cut large deficits in exchange for increased limit on borrowing. He also said it'd be completely irresponsible if the government went into default and tanked the global economy. The Republicans argue the Democrats want a free pass to spend money they don't have, while the Democrats say the Republicans won't agree to raise the debt limit without budget binds and cuts.<br />In this scenario, the Republicans arguement makes far more sense. The Democrats think that if they borrow money, they can eventually get the economy back on track. I know these economy reforms take a while to take effect, but Obama's been borrowing money for two years and the economy's just in a bigger mess. We're in no posistion to borrow money, so it makes no sense that the Democrats want to borrow more. This scenario as a chance to save the economy or destroy it. I don't know if it's worth the risk. I know Obama's got a long term plan but only has two years until the next election so he has to act fast.<br /><br />Mark Stouffer<br />Period 7Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15888462462700850988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065930044872741375.post-32573448331612218012011-04-21T22:21:48.911-04:002011-04-21T22:21:48.911-04:00Kate Boyd
http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/21/news/eco...Kate Boyd<br />http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/21/news/economy/pentagon_budget/index.htm<br />7th pd<br /><br />In the recent budget debate, the Pentagon was given a slight boost in funding, though they wanted billions more. This was taken as a sign that there will soon be cuts to the defense budget, which budget experts have been pushing for for months. Many say that the only possible way to fix the budget crisis is to make significant cuts to defense. The Pentagon spends half of its budget on troops and defense support, so cutting the Pentagon budget will greatly reduce the number of troops. Obama has outlined a new plan that will reduce military spending by $400 billion by 2023. <br /><br />I think it's good that defense spending is being looked at and considered for cuts. I don't feel that I know enough about the military to really say how big the cuts should be, as keeping our troops supported is still important. I am glad that Obama having experts look at this and seriously consider spending cuts.Katehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06609027572209482731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065930044872741375.post-10118934743293251452011-04-21T22:05:57.250-04:002011-04-21T22:05:57.250-04:00http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/19/news/economy/spend...http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/19/news/economy/spending_taxes_debt/index.htm<br /><br />The government is running out of money and fast. Right now the government spends 28.4% or their revenue on social security, 24% on interest, 21.3% on Medicare, 15.3% on Medicaid, leaving only a measly 11% for everything else. President Obama predicts that by 2025, Medicare, Medicaid Social Security, and interest will use up all the federal governments revenue. At this point, everything else like transportation, education, and national security will have to be paid for with borrowed money. This is very bad news for us because it means that our tax dollars aren’t paying for everything we need. By 2020, we will only have 11% of the budget to pay for other national priorities, but after then it will eventually be reduced to zero percent. So what can we do? Well the government could hike up tax prices and cut down spending to the lowest possible amount, but that’s way too difficult. They could also borrow the money needed from other countries, but the interest cost would be higher than the amount borrowed which would be counterproductive. We will just have to work our way through these hard times and hope it gets better eventually. <br /><br />I think this is kind of scary to think that there really isn’t much we can do to help the economy because the government is already taking all the money we can give. This article relates to our study about the governments revenue. They are running out of money to pay for essential things like education, transportation and even national security. I really hope things get better and we figure out a way to help the budget without emptying our pockets completely. <br /><br />Laura Musalem<br />period 6Laura Musalemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04411277008690423364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065930044872741375.post-27269490891262699852011-04-21T21:55:13.104-04:002011-04-21T21:55:13.104-04:00http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/20/news/international...http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/20/news/international/world_crisis_dont_panic.fortune/index.<br /><br />There are many events occurring around the world right now. The Japan Crisis, the war in Libya, and the decaying economies in Greece, Portugal, and Ireland are all things that are affecting the world economy right now. But just how much will it be affected by all these things? The author of the article thinks the world economy will not be greatly affected by this. For example, Libya only controls 2% of the world's known oil reserves. On the other hand, these events could cause trends that COULD affect the economy in the future. For example, if the unrest in Libya spread to Saudi Arabia then the world economy could suffer.<br /><br />I think it's good to consider the long term and short term effects of what is happening in the world right now. It's important to evaluate just how much these events could effect the world economy in a year from now, or in 15 years. We should be prepared for how these things will effect the economy, but no one should overreact to what's happening or panic, as panic will definitely only make anything that occurs worse.Liamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16178618039910565821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065930044872741375.post-48452267795516432012011-04-21T21:32:06.514-04:002011-04-21T21:32:06.514-04:00Leila Doerfer
Period 6
http://www.nytimes.com/201...Leila Doerfer<br />Period 6<br /><br />http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/business/21screener.html?ref=us<br /><br />The nation's airport screeners voted in favor of unionizing in the largest unionization vote involving federal employees. However federal officials say there will be a runoff since neither union on the ballot got a majority of the votes cast. Federal officials say 8,369 security screeners, who are employees of the Transportation Security Administration, had voted to join the American Federation of Government Employees, while 8,095 had voted to join the National Treasury Employees Union. There were 3,111 votes against unionizing. Since none of the three choices got the majority vote, there will be a runoff where screeners will choose between the two different unions, which will leave out the option of not unionizing. Whichever union wins will represent the 44,000 workers that are Transportation Security Administrators (T.S.A.). The runoff will happen sometime in the next two months. Labor leaders were happy when 84 percent of the screeners that voted favored a union. They said it showed that "many government employees still wanted to bargain collectively, even when public employees are on the defensive in places like Wisconsin and Ohio, where state leaders have largely curtailed the right of public sector unions to bargain." Until recently screeners did not have a right to bargain collectively. But in February, the T.S.A.’s administrator, John S. Pistole, reversed the position of his Republican predecessor and gave the employees the right to bargain collectively. Pistole said screeners could bargain over policies on shifts, dress code, break time and awards. But the union could not negotiate wages, benefits, job qualifications, discipline standards or anything related to national security. He also said the agency’s workers would not be allowed to strike or engage in a slowdown and would be fired for doing so. Many Republican leaders were worried that this would cause workers to go on strike and jeopardize national security but Pistole informed them that national security was still the primary concern and that it was clear to the workers that they were not allowed to negotiate when it came to national security.<br />This connects to what we've been talking about in class because it mentions collective bargaining, going on strike and unions. I think it's really interesting that people can be in a union that can only ask for certain things. I know that's the point of collective bargaining but it still seems a little weird to me. To me it seems sort of against the point of a union when the workers aren't even allowed to ask for certain things or they will get fired. I think it's good that they are taking the vote though because then the majority of people will get the union that they want, and everyone will benefit in one way or another.leilahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17553501219718462453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065930044872741375.post-58949320609620057012011-04-21T21:16:55.978-04:002011-04-21T21:16:55.978-04:00When most people think about a labor union going o...When most people think about a labor union going on strike they think that the labor union has a large chunk of the power in that business. Most people suspect that this is about 50/50 for management vs labor unions. This idea is flawed in many ways and should not be what the public thinks when they hear a labor union strike. The majority of the power goes to the management and little is left for the opinion of the labor union in all 50 states. <br /> I think that more power should be given to the labor unions and the workers that are members of the group. Labor unions are set out to help people achieve higher pay and less hours spent laboring over work. One of the only ways that a union can do this is though the method called striking. Striking has been shown to be effective if the strike is not violent<br />http://www.arbitragemagazine.com/arb-news/public-mind-vs4-public-sector-unions-wisconsin-protests1/connor randolphhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10992516936474425146noreply@blogger.com