September 29, 2014

Nobel Prize-Winning Economist: We're Headed for Oligarchy

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/04/nobel-prize-winning-economist-were-heading-for-oligarchy/361200/ 

This article was mentioned and talked about in class and I decided to do some more digging into it. 

Nobel prize winning economist Robert Solow back in April posted a review on a book by Thomas Piketty's called The New Republic. Particularly he went off about effects of income equality and the concentration of wealth in the top 1%. He mentions, what we were talking about in class, that more and more government is not about governing for the right reasons and also why we have a government but being controlled by people with large amounts of money. "If that kind of concentration of wealth continues, then we get to be more and more an oligarchical country, a country that's run from the top." Solow said. He isn't the only economist to use the word oligarchy when reviewing this article. In Solow's review of Piketty's book he analyzes what he says and explains what trends and theories he is suggesting and offers his own opinion to make an economy or country to favor merit over inheritance.

Here is a link to Solow's review http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117429/capital-twenty-first-century-thomas-piketty-reviewed 

 

I read a good part of Solow's review and will finish it later but it really is a fascinating reading. It has a lot of really good points about income inequality and I would recommend it. I personally am still gaining knowledge and a stronger opinion on the subject but I do think that the wealth distribution is way to out of wack. With millionaires and billionaires inhabiting our country with people who are barely earning enough income to own a apartment, pay for food, shelter, etc, and provide for a family does seem cruel and unjustifiable but it is also a free market economy does and that is how our economy is set up. My question is should government regulate income more to allow there to be more equality so people can live better lives?

September 23, 2014

How Obama came to launch strikes in Syria  

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/23/politics/obama-syria-strikes-policy/index.html?hpt=po_c1

Yesterday the United States began air strikes on the terrorist group named ISIS in Syria. Already were there air strikes in Iraq against ISIS but Obama wants to neutralize them on multiple fronts. The Presidents decision came after consent of congress and also support from other Arab nations. Along with the increased air strikes and also air strikes in Syria Obama reported that he launched an air strike against another terrorist group that stemmed from al-qaeda.

Obama has taken on a world stage to take on ISIS with support from other nations. Around fifty nations have rallied support for Obama and the fight against ISIS. He has called for a meeting with the UN to discuss this issue.

Obviously there have been a lot of posts and comments on the subject of ISIS and I though I would weigh in as well seeing that it has now escalated. I agree with Obama and the actions he is taking. I honestly think what he has done so far has been great handling of foreign policy and the situation at hand. ISIS is a terrorist group who has called out serious, dangerous, and very real threats against America and its people. The threat has to be neutralized. The main problem and question that arises is should America delve deep into this issue in the Middle East? I think in our past experiences and problems that we encountered and caused in the Middle East and particularly Iraq we do hold somewhat of a responsibility to the people there. I do think we should keep an appropriate distance and take logical steps so that we don't get stuck further in the Middle East and also that we don't hurt the nations there and make them less self sufficient.

Semptember 9, 2014

Five reasons Obama's delay on immigration

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/08/politics/obama-immigration-5-things/index.html?hpt=po_c2

After stating earlier this year to use his executive powers to push along immigration reform, President Obama anounced that he would be putting his plans on hold until after November elections. Obama announced his plans after the House refused to pass a bipartisan reform bill that already passed the Senate. The move angered Latinos and democrats who were pushing for executive action and were hoping for more things to have been accomplished. And despite the fact republicans are against Obama's plans they're still using this to critisize him. Obama's delay is political and here are 5 reasons why.

1. Obama wishes to delay the reform till after the elections in November this year to keep the focus on voting. In a tough election year for democrats it will detract some of the attention away from issues that may hurt democrats chances for spots in the house and senate.

2. It avoids giving republicans reasons for accusing Obama of overstepping his power as President. Many were not happy hearing Obama saying he will use executive action to refrom immigration in the first place and many are still upset about health care reform who accuse him of abusing his power. 

3. Democrats and Obama won't have to defend to themselves for a move that has been made unpopular in the past year because of the influx of child immigrants. 

4. It puts the pressure on the republicans in congress for not voting on the bill that passed the senate. Immigration is a problem and democrats have worked on it and now its turning the negative attention on the republicans for not working to pass and fix something that needs fixing.

5. It is a move that is more down the politcal middle rather than leaning more left than right.

Its obvious that there are problems in immigration in  our nation today and it does need to be fixed. It really frustrates me that republicans in congress make it their agenda to ruin the agenda of the democrats and Obama instead of trying to debate and compromise on the issue. The bill was bipartisan through the senate and the speaker of the house John Boehner refused to put the bill on the floor in the house of reps. Thats inaction on the part of house of reps and republicans and so I support Obama for going out there and trying to get something done on his own. When they aren't doing something and you can respond and make change do it (of course within the bounds of the law and constitution). 

September 3, 2014
Why Governor Rick Perry of Texas is in Trouble
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/02/politics/rick-perry-indictment/index.html


The District Attorney of Travis County in Texas Rosemary Lehmberg was arrested on charges of DWI. She was pulled over and had a blood alcohol level of .239 and had to be aggressively restrained while being arrested and put in jail. Being of such a high and respectable position in government she was asked by people in her District to step down. She refused to step down and continues to serve as the District Attorney.
How was Gov. Perry involved in all of this? He joined in all of the other voices demanding her to resign. When she refused he threatened her to cut out funding of the program she was involved in which ironically investigates wrong doings in public officials. Immediately after the threat extreme liberals and democrats of the state of Texas indicted Gov. Perry for over using his powers arguing that while he is allowed to veto and defund he is not allowed to use that to threaten people into doing things.
Many people are seeing this as a scheme being between democrats and republicans. Lehmberg a powerful democrat in the republican majority of Texas being threatened by Gov. Perry who is a hopeful for the republican presidential nominee. Gov. Perry being a republican being indicted by hard core democrats.
Gov. Perry has been indicted but the real question comes across is did he really break the law? Is it illegal for him to threaten to use his power and authority as governor? Did he overuse or misuse his power?

On this issue with so many questions looming I think overall everyone is not acting in the way they should be acting. Obviously Lehmberg shouldn't have be drunk driving and should step down from a respectable position. Gov. Perry went about the wrong way on trying to get her to resign which ultimately turned attention away from her and put it on him. The liberals who indicted Gov. Perry for something which honestly isn't against the law. Even though he didn't act with great respect or etiquette  for the power but its not illegal and it seems they're just those people who linger around waiting for the bad in the world to come around just to exploit it. Gov. Perry should have never threatened to use his power because of the mess it caused and how irrational his threat was. But Lehmberg should step down. In such an important and public position such as that it is her responsibility to treat it with respect or suffer the consequences of being reckless while in that position.