Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts

Monday, January 28, 2008

The State of the Union Address

[IMAGE via whitehouse.gov]

President George W. Bush entered the halls of congress with a grin of celebrity. The crowd of supporter's bombarded for autographs and handshakes. His opposition took their seats with out a humble welcoming for the President.

This is President George W. Bush's last State of the Union Address. When taking the podium a crowd of roaring clap and cheers welcomed the speaker. The Democratic Party seemed to embrace the idea of finality over the eight-year reign of the Bush administration. The President's speech was told with mild surprise, and in a laundry list of issues. He began with addressing the economic despair facing the United State's. He then later went on to cover such topics as the failing public educational system, trade agreement reforms, new energy reform, immigration, and the war on terror.

Click “read more!” to continue…


George Bush gave a modest speech in regards to the economy. Bringing up concerns of his true understanding of the seriousness of the United States economic despair. Stating that we need to "trust the American people with their money." He wants to pursue a "robust growth package" that will require tax rebates and incentive's for business investment. This is to provide an instant stimulus for a struggling economy. He did not suggest a long-term plan for economic relief except his desire to "make tax relief permanent." Strongly pronouncing his determination to "veto any bill that land's on his desk to raise taxes."

The mortgage crisis that is stumbling many American homeowners’ was a specific issue regarded. Bush proclaimed his determination to "offer tax rebates to help owner's refinance their homes.” This gained a collective approval from all house representatives.

Lastly, he defined his economic proposals with a universally accepted statement, "If American families have to manage their budget's, then so should their government." A standing ovation with applause followed.

In regards to Health Care George Bush announced the government would pursue a new goal to "make health care affordable and accessible for all American's." All members of Congress applauded in support. Quickly following, Democrat’s quieted when he stated his disapproval of Universal Health care, "Congress should expand consumer choice—not government control." This is in reference to a popular policy reform desired by Democratic candidates in the upcoming election. Yelps of approval and roaring applause rose from the Republican Party, Democrat's grinned in their seats.

The public education of America has been under critical review in recent years. Record failure of American student’s has taken the forefront of the educational debate. Bush administrations ‘No Child Left behind Act” has been highly criticized. President Bush set to prove its success showcasing misleading statistical proof that it has not failed. To further improve education Bush wants to give grants to poor students to attend private and faith based school’s due to the under performing public educational system. Not acknowledging the fact that students shouldn’t have to attend these institutions; Our government should be able to provide a universally accepted public education system of high performance schools.

Bush asked for congress to approve trade agreements with Pomona, Columbia, and South Korea. Recognizing that trade “can loose American jobs,” he explained that congress should “reform trade adjustment” to help displaced workers learn new skills and find new jobs. This is an honorable solution but an indisputable huge inconvenience to many American’s, while being an Corporation favored legislature.

The President catered his speech towards Republican policies turning to democratic support when it came to his policies on alternative energy. He admitted America’s need to find alternatives fuels and recognized our desire to limit our reliance of foreign oil. He asked congress to fund research of these environmental alternatives including; coal power, nuclear power, and advance battery technology for cars and trucks. Bush also asked that they establish a new international clean technology fund. Along with a fund to slow down and eventually stop green house gases. Democratic supporters took the crowd in overwhelming support of these requests.

The War on Terror consumed most of the State of the Union Address. Bush proclaimed the surge is “spreading the hope of freedom.” This is a much lighter perspective than seen in the last State of the Union Address. Perhaps Bush has realized that “the elimination of terror” was an ambitious goal for his final year. He also stunned much of the audience when he claimed the surge was working. President Bush’s brave statement was addressed to a crowd of critics. He continued persistently saying we are seeking to “deliver justice to our enemies.” Feeling the need to defend the surge, the President presented statistical proof of a body count down turn while stating that “There is no doubt that Al Qaeda is on the run in Iraq and this enemy will be defeated.” Democrats soured.

Shockingly, President Bush went on official record as having plans to invade Iran. This is a plan that is passionately demised by the Democratic Party. Bush stated, “We will defend our vital interests in the Persian Gulf.” Comforting some by reminding listeners that this will only happen be request of necessity.

Bush asked congress to extend the legislature that is set to help aid in finding terrorists. This legislature is set to end February 1st, Republicans stood in support, democrats stayed seated with no applause.

Finally the president ended his speech to send his respects to the American troops who have bravely and honorably defended this country in this on going war on terror. He proclaimed his intentions to increased funding for veterans while reforming the veteran system to “ meet the needs of a new war and a new generation.” Bush also asked that permission be granted to the families of military to be allowed to transfer unused education benefits to their spouses and children, “Our military families serve our nation— inspire our nation, and tonight our nation honors them.”

Summing his words Bush proclaimed, “our State of the Union will remain strong.”

written by: Jessica Erven (c) 2008

Digg!
Read more!

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Bad Economy: Slow Job Market

[IMAGE via bigpicture.typepad.com]


Many highly skilled workers in the United States are finding themselves out of long-term employment. Middle American's have been feeling the unforgiving outcome of the up-coming recession for months, some even year's. As Micheal A. Flecher of the Washington Post puts it, "The problem is ensnaring a broader swath of workers than before. Once concentrated among manufacturing workers and those with little work history, education or skills, long-term unemployment is growing most rapidly among white-collar and college-educated workers with long work experience, studies have found, making the problem difficult for policymakers to address even as it grows more urgent."

Caroline Dixon, 41, is a college graduate with a steady work history. When she quit her job just under a year ago becuase she felt it wasn't "a good fit" she was certain she'd be back in the working force soon. Now, nine months has passed and she circulates the unemployment office daily in desperate search for a job that will pay her close to her old salary of $65,000 a year. This is not a Mcdonalds employer who is to lazy to find a job. This is a hard working woman, experiencing the cold hard truth of a low economy, and she is not alone.

I myself have been looking for a job for about a month now, I'm already in a city with a low job market, but there just aren't any job's out there for me to apply. Maybe a quick fix tax rebate of around $500-650.00 come April would help out the out of work employee, but I'm not sure if it would stimulate the economy.

written by: Jessica Erven (c) 2008





END OF POST
Read more!

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

The Democratic Debates- Las Vegas

Image: Getty Images

The Democratic Debates
Las Vegas, NV
Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Edwards won. Hillary regained her stand. Obama...Stuttered.

Democratic frontrunners Obama, Clinton, and Edwards took a more civil approach for their race to the oval office at the Democratic debates yesterday in Las Vegas, Nevada. The viewers were happily reminded that the democratic candidates "are all family in the Democratic party," as Hillary Clinton humbly stated, "We are so different from the Republican's on all of these issues." This statement was genuine and sincerely accepted by her fellow party competition, and greatly appreciated by a largely indecisive audience.

MSNBC aired the debate with light humored moderators Brian Williams, Tim Russert, and Natalie Morales, while viewers were given the opportunity to voice their concerns and questions to the hopeful candidates via the Internet.


click "read more!" to continue...



This debate revolved around hot topic issue including the economy, immigration, health care, the environment and Nevada's personal issue with Yucca Mountain and nuclear waste. All responses from each candidate seemed thought-out, important, and honest, although each contender at some point of the night resorted to old tactics despite the pleasant light-hearted tone of the debates.

Surprisingly Barack Obama, who has experienced media success since he was first announced to be running for President, including his win in Iowa doing nothing but boosting his fan base, seemed to be on the defense most of the night. His defeat to Hillary in New Hampshire must have jogged his natural smooth-talkin' self, because for the first time he seemed to be losing. What was his biggest mistake of the night? When asked what his biggest weakness was he responded, "my greatest weakness, I think, is when it comes to -- I'll give you a very good example. I ask my staff never to hand me paper until two seconds before I need it, because I will lose it. You know. The -- you know. And my desk in my office doesn't look good. I've got to have somebody around me who is keeping track of that stuff. And that's not trivial." Although I'm sure it was intended to be a joke it still seems a little uneasy to me that this candidate doesn't even believe that he himself can manage something as simple as organization. Clinton used his answer as a way to attack him in a later question. She very brutally compared his lack of managerial skills to that of the Bush administration, a cold slap to the face indeed, but a correct one at that. Of course, though, Obama being the media favorite did not get much negative press from his response and no matter how terrible it was it will be forgotten tomorrow the same way Edward's is forgotten even when he's on the top of his game.

Hillary was talking heavy, and was the only candidate to express her same old ideas in new and interesting ways. This debate made me want to tell Edwards to keep the message but get some new sob stories, and to tell Obama to explain what "bringing people together means" and to find a synonym for the word change (EDIT: after looking up the synonyms I can see why this is the only suitable word to use, but still he should find a new approach to his ideas). Rethinking Hillary's win in New Hampshire, I'm starting to think that perhaps it was deserved, despite the incident that "humanized" her.

Edward's seemed to be the winner of the debate, yet still, somehow, does not receive the media attention he has deserved for over a year. A viewer from San Diego asked Edwards a vital question concerning many voters, "the policy differences among the remaining candidates is so slight that we appear to be choosing on the basis of personality and life story. That being said, why should I, as a progressive woman, not resent being forced to choose between the first viable female candidate and the first viable African American candidate?" When it comes to Edwards campaign I think this is the most important question to be asked. Edwards did his best to respond, reminding us of his poverty stricken past, and relating that to his fight for the middle-class, health care, unions, and the struggle of the American people. One thing he said that differs him from his fellow candidates is how he believes "the system in Washington is broken." Claiming he is a candidate that can bring the change that the democratic party has promised, because of his passion, and personal connection to the average American needs. With this beautifully construed answer I still don't logically understand why he continues to be to be third in this race.

Clinton remained cordial and verbally considerate, making me like her the way I did before the race became a chicken fight. However, her earnest side that she discovered right before New Hampshire came alive when she revised her opportunity to drill a fellow candidate with a question, and instead asked Obama to buddy up with her to help stop our current president from invading Iran. She did so, mind you, beginning with a long rant leaving me to wonder if she understood what she was asked to do. Although a courageous effort to end her aggressive campaign against Obama, and to bring up a vital issue regarding our current administration, I still don't understand why Edward's wasn't asked to party up with them as well. Also, why that had to be done at that moment? I wanted to hear real questions, from each of them, but instead it became a publicity stunt. I found myself rolling my eyes just like I did when she was eating that meal, and answering that question with "something in her eye" in New Hampshire.

Despite each candidates represented mistakes, this is the first time that I felt in a while that I was actually getting my questions answered with real answers. No one was selling me hope, slamming their competition, or making me vote out of guilt. All three of these candidates are advocates for change, and I wish that they could all be in apart of the future 2009 administration, but, in the end, only one can sit in that chair, and only one can change the damages created in the past seven years.

written by: Jessica Erven (c) 2008

For more information visit:
Read more!

Blog Archive