Assignment #8 K. Tough

Did I hear a Nanny, Nanny, Boo, Boo at the end of Harold Meyerson’s article in The Washington Post? I think I did. His final note in the article “It’s Not about Socialism, its About Rescuing Capitalism” was a little accusatory; like a parent saying, you got yourself into this mess, now get yourself out. I did not take his tone personally though; I understand that as one of two democratic socialists among so many republican capitalists on the hill Meyerson is just expelling a little frustration. Our government is what we have made it since we elect those that make up our governmental leaders and we do so knowing what they believe in and stand for. Meyerson is wagging his finger at all of us, not just his counterparts on capital hill. In the past we have not seen capitalism as an economic trickle down effect with an unequal distribution of wealth. I believe we have all seen capitalism as our ticket to the American Dream with free enterprise and supply and demand regulating itself. This does not seem to be the case in my life time and I see the author trying to make the point that the capitalist system of our country in present time is not laissez-faire (pure); it has been tainted by the conservatives. The trickle down has stopped at the executive level and the government has had to consistently force this form of capitalism by providing ‘guidelines’ for minimum wage, bonuses, work related expenses, and other areas where the economy stalls before it distributes capital among workers.
If capitalism is in support of a free market with no governmental intervention; than, it has and is failing. If the conservatives fighting for capitalism are just holding back reforms that may resemble socialism in the name of capitalism; then, they are just holding back reforms that may be beneficial to the citizens of the United States. I see President Obama’s reforms as Mr. Meyerson does; he is not socializing our economy, but attempting to invigorate it through stimulating the private market. This is a capitalist move in my view; maybe not the right move. But it is still capitalism, to an extent, since a true capitalist would just leave the economy to itself. I am not sure there is a true socialist government any more than there is a true capitalist government. I had the pleasure of living in Germany for some time in elementary school and even their form of socialism was scattered; for example, they provided higher education for all citizens, but the government determined if you went to University or Gymnasium (technical school). There appeared to be a capitalist government in the days we are studying in the Western world, but I don’t think that was laissez-faire either.
I do not believe Mr. Meyerson is attempting to convert his readers to socialism, yet give them a true understanding of its meaning. If the media and citizens of our country are going to accuse the President and other citizens of being socialists; Meyerson would like them to have the correct definition. Socialists believe that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, creates an unequal society, and does not provide equal opportunities for everyone in society. I think their point has been made in the past few years. Socialists advocate the creation of a society where wealth and power are distributed more evenly based on the amount of work expended in production. This is not to say that a brick layer works harder than a doctor so he should make more money, but rather the brick layers trade is a necessary commodity as is the doctors and her wages should reflect that.
I know Meyerson is speaking out of frustration, as we all are, but he is one of the lucky ones who write for a fairly liberal newspaper that will allow him to state his beliefs for the entire world to consider. That is one of the perks of capitalism; we have numerous newspapers to choose from. If we were a completely socialist society would socialists like Ted Turner be so wealthy or would Mr. Meyerson have written this article, or would their talents be provided by the state instead of free enterprise?

Assignment #8 - C Strickland

In the article, "It's not about socialism, it's about rescuing capitalism", Harold Meyerson points out that saving the capitalist system that is currently in place in America, may take actions that appear to be socialist. The government has to step in if Americans do not want large companies to fail. In a true capitalist economy the banking and automotive industries would have already failed due to the economic breakdown that occurred. People screamed for the government to step in and help and some of those same people are accusing the President of being a socialist. I wish they would make up their mind of what they want before they start asking for governmental influence.
I do agree with this author’s point of view, in that our past capitalist actions have lead to somewhat of a socialist input from our government. This should be a lesson that a capitalistic economy needs governmental regulations due to the fact that the motivation of the large companies is greed, which will lead to problems in the future, as we are now witnessing.

Assignment #8 C.Robertson

The article, "It's not about socialism, it's about rescuing capitalism" appeared in the Washington Post and was written by Harold Meyerson. This article explores the actions and opinions of socialists and capitalists in reference to the country's economic past and present. The fact presented in this article, that the Unites States has the highest healthcare costs in the world was startling, seeing as we have spent so much money rescuing banks and other businesses to keep them from plummeting. I think that we need to spend less time criticizing the socialist/capitalist aspects of how we are carrying out economic decisions and spend more time doing what is in the best interest of our country and stick with it, and that is the reason Obama is our president, because our country put faith in him to make the best p0ssible decisions for America. This article was directed towards citizens to present facts and project the author's opinions concerning capitalism and socialism.

Assignment #8 S Alt

The article "It's not about socialism, it's about rescuing capitalism" was written for the Washington Post by Harold Meyerson. Whenever you turn on the TV and a Republican is speaking, all they do is shout socialism. It sounds like the title of a book: "The Republican who cried 'Socialist!' " Considering how the Republicans were in control of the country for the majority of when the beginning of this crisis was starting and did absolutely nothing, I really don't see how their alternative solution can be anything positive. And like the article said, actual socialists have not been voicing their support of Obama. Plus, given how absolutely terrible this nation's healthcare system is, why does the idiotic idea of a $5000 tax credit sound preferrable to universal healthcare? This isn't Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, we don't have to try and keep the little kids out of the big kids' pool. Starving and suffering people looking to the government for help are hardly what anyone would call "moochers." If wanting a sensible, sustainable and equal America is what deems the article's author and I a raging, flaming Leninist, then count me in. I'd rather see an America where the poor and downtrodden are treated as human beings and people are willing to sacrifice for the good of the team than an authoritarian, Darwinian society where only the strongest survive. Are we not able as people to overcome Darwinian law and a corrupt form of capitalism?

jplyler Assignment#8

The article is entitled "Who You Calling Socialist?", and is written by Harold Meyerson of the Washington Post. This was a good article about socialist. They speak about our economy and our health care situation. Which is very true, health care should be our main prority not bailing out car dealerships but putting that money into healthcare. Obama and Roosevelt were both attack for being socialist they were not trying to creat socialism they were trying to reboot it. Really no one will ever fix this economy; obama is trying and i give him credit for that but our nation is in some much debt we will never regain what we lost. Maybe when roosvelt was in office he could have done something then. It has gone to far, so who do we really need to call socalists.

Assignment #6 - C Strickland

This was a very interesting article, and I have to agree with pretty much all of it. This article points out one of the very obvious reasons for this economical decline, greed. Greed is what motivated bankers and investment consultants to hide risk and fool investors. This in turn caused an ill affect on the manufacturing industry, by which I am currently employed.

I also have wondered how we, as a group, will overcome this situation, given the fact that everyone that I know is currently doing everything that they can to cut there cost. This seems to be driving us further into decline. What will it take to create change?

Any audience would, or should, appreciate this article published in the NY Times.

Assignment #6 K.Tough

This article, “Revenge of the Glut” is very similar in content to the President’s recent address to Congress. President Obama pointed out, as did Mr. Krugman, that American’s are gluts. Mr. Krugman is targeting our past and present saving mode, yet President Obama pointed out our glutens behavior in living above our means. The subprime crisis Mr. Krugman mentioned from the ‘good old days’ was a direct result of Americans choosing to live above their means. In the late ‘80’s and 1990’s we purchased homes that were out of our financial grasp, but acquired mortgages that were below the subprime allowing us to live above our means. There is no real blame mentioned in this article, nor in the President’s speech. There is no blame cast on the mortgage companies, banks, realtors, or home buyers; yet there is an explanation for all of this downward economic spiraling. There is the influx of foreign monies mentioned in Mr. Bernanke’s speech, and the American dollars that went to other countries also; but none of this was enough to offset the gluten of American homebuyers.
The author is definitely addressing the average citizen, and his terminology and language exemplify that. He has not actually shown a specific side as I can determine from his wording, yet he does appear to have a view. Krugman sounds as disappointed in the slump as everyone else in the country. He sees the mess we have created clearly, but like the rest of us he does not have a solution. We continue to save due to our fears of the economy, we continue to live above our means, and we may have taken on an attitude of thrift, but it is still one of living above our means and saving for fear of not having a future.
Krugman wants us to see what is going on in the world and how we have repeated the same mistakes as our parent’s generation. He has laid it out, but not given us a solution. Is there a solution? Have we learned from history?

Assignment# 6 A.Lowry

The article "Revenge of the Glut" was written by Paul Krugman for The New York Times. I believe this article was written to inform all Americans how the economic crisis began. It explains how not just us people in the United States are suffering from economics, but its also effecting the whole world. The article also points at the forclosing homes and where the turning point occured that made millions and counting lose their homes. And sources tell that Clinton's Aminstration put the housing crisis to arise, while Obama is trying his hardest efforts to keep millions of american in their homes. But basically, i really dont see us getting out of this mess no time soon. And the authors gives good thought and opinion, giving a little hope to the crisis.

Assignment # 6 S Alt

The article "Revenge of the Glut" was written by Paul Krugman of the New York Times. The purpose of the article was to provide information on how the economic meltdown began. Personally, I think it's funny that Republicans like to use the same tired ideas that got us into this mess (as indicated by the "conservative praise" in the article) to try and get us out of it. You don't throw gasoline on a fire to put it out. But honestly, we really have absolutely no clue how to solve this problem.

Assignment #6 T Gombar

Paul Krugman wrote “Revenge of the Glut” for The New York Times. I believe this article was written to inform the American people how this economic crisis began, and that it’s something that has been inevitable and in the making for a while. Also to let people know that it’s not just America struggling right now. Several countries are experiencing the same issues.

I think the basic argument that he is trying to make is that what is causing the crises is still an issue, and maybe we should look at not just trying to fix the problem in America, but if it is stemmed from other countries just fixing our problem may not be enough. At the end of the article it says “around the world, desired savings exceeds the amount businesses are willing to invest. And the result is a global slump that leaves everyone worse off. So that’s how we got into this mess. And we’re still looking for the way out.” I believe that statement basically sums up the article.

Tara Gombar

Assignment #6 M E Mockridge

"Revenge of The Glut" is an Op-Ed piece in the N.Y. Times written by Paul Krugman. Krugman is a renowned Economics and International Affairs professor at Princeton University who won the Nobel Prize for Economics in 2008. I believe he is trying to reach out to the general public regarding our financial woes, since so many of us are dazed and confused by it all.
Krugman ponders the current state of our economy and offers some valid reasons as to how this mess started. I agree with his (and Fed Chief Ben Bernakes') assertion that the cracks in the world financial stage began in Asia in the late 90's. His points about the rise and fall of small European economies are valid also. The world markets are more connected than ever. While we are still the strongest market in the world, we certainly are not insulated from the effect of global fluctuations.
Mr. Krugman touches on our housing crisis and the sub prime mortgage fiasco, but fails to mention that it was the Clinton administration that forced banks to make bad loans via the Community Reinvestmment Act. The housing bubble was destined to burst, but politicians have kept in on life support for an inordinate amount of time.
In order for capitalism to work, bubbles must be allowed to burst and companies allowed to fail. Through the ashes, like the Phoneix, stronger and greater markets will emerge.
I was disappointed that Mr. Krugman did not offer any solutions to the worlds' financial woes. His opinions are highly respected and could shed some light into the darkness that is our economy.

Assignment #6 C Archie

The article "Revenge of the Glut" actually leaves me clueless as to what to say. I mean, whenever there is a high in the economy then we are forgetting to look at some kind of factor or formula that eventually brings the times to a halt; when the economy is bad people finally get the idea into their, excuse me, our heads to save and be thrifty. So there is always something wrong that is going to lead to the next big crisis or upturn. The problem is that it's hard to know what unless it happens or you are one of the richest, smartest people in the world, Ben Bernanke, fits into that last category.
We as American's need to at least listen to these people from time to time. It's a shock for me to say that but you don't hire a circus clown to be the head of the Federal Reserve. Not only that, Bernanke as well as Alan Greenspan, for years now have had the world on the tip of their tongue with every word they say. If either one of them were to say the wrong thing one it would show the next day in the stock market. We as American's need to learn this fairly new concept called...moderation. We either excessively spend or save everything to the point where we have no actual money to back it up. Somehow with this faulted system in place things still find a way to recover, it may take years but something always works out. So look on the bright side people, in about ten years when you have kids in elementary school things will be fine. Until then, have fun trying to find a place to raise them.

Assignment # 6 Roxanne Ayers

"Revenge of the Glut" was an article written by Paul Krugman for The New York Times, whose audience is usually pretty politically liberal. It was surprising that this article seemed to support the idea that Asia is mostly to blame for the economic crisis we are facing today instead of the policies that deregulated businesses and banking. Let's not forget those who made these regulations obsolete created the path for this to happen, let's also not forget that greed was a factor and you can find that on both sides of the political fence.

Mr. Krugman explains how even though a small portion of the country experienced a great deal of growth, now that it has busted, the whole country gets to share in the experience of feeling the effects.

He quotes and uses the logic of Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, who lays the blame on Asia who invested heavily in our country after their own economic crisis in the late 1990's. Asia made growing beyond our means too easy with their influx of money.

His theory is acceptable to me to a point, but I wish more authors were interviewing economic experts and succesful business men to find an answer and writing about how to fix this mess - I mean really, who at this point cares how it happened? It's time to do something about it.

Assignment #8 - K McWhirter

The article is entitled "Who You Calling Socialist?", and is written by Harold Meyerson of the Washington Post.

This was the most entertaining article I have read in this class. First of all, the writer makes a very sarcastic reference to the health care situation:"Their signal success is to have kept the United States free from the taint of universal health care. The result: We have the world's highest health-care costs, borne by businesses and employees that cannot afford them; nearly 50 million Americans have no coverage; infant mortality rates are higher than those in 41 nations -- but at least (phew!) we don't have socialized medicine."

I thought that statement was very true and epitomizes what has been on the minds of certain individuals.

The writer goes on to make the point that not only did conservatives attack Obabma, but they also attacked Roosevelt. However, as the writer puts it, both men were simply "engaged not in creating socialism but in rebooting a crashed capitalist system." This makes sense as the investment of money into education and research can only lead to a more competitive private sector and the results thereof. The banking system needs to stay in check as well.

The part that really gets me is that all these different people take shots at Obama and his methods and so forth, however these same idiots don't have an answer for the economy themselves. They simply argue with those available; it would be different if they had some idea of how to successfully combat the economic crisis, but guess what? THEY DON'T! THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA.

The writer goes on to detail just how miserable the economy is - this is due in part to the policies of those who are actually spear-heading the criticism:
1) failures of the great Wall Street investment houses and the worldwide crisis of commercial banks
2) the collapse of East Asian, German and American exports
3) the death rattle of the U.S. auto industry
4) the plunge of stock markets everywhere
5) the sickening rise in global joblessness
6) the growing shakiness of governments in fledgling democracies that opened themselves to the world market

That is quite a list and given these parameters, the writer argues that a more social capitalism is necessary - and you know what? He is probably right.

Assignment #6 - K McWhirter

The name of the article is "Revenge of the Glut" written by the Op-Ed Columnist Paul Krugman.

The writer makes the case that the current woes of the country (and the world for that matter) is a case of "the revenge of the glut".

Basically, after the Asian financial crisis of (1997-98), those countries began to export capiatl to the rest of the world. The writer goes on to relate how most of that moneyt whent to the United States, thereby leading to our trade deficit.

Relating as to why tghe global savings ended up in the Unites States, the writer says this:
"Mr. Bernanke cited “the depth and sophistication of the country’s financial markets (which, among other things, have allowed households easy access to housing wealth).” Depth, yes. But sophistication? Well, you could say that American bankers, empowered by a quarter-century of deregulatory zeal, led the world in finding sophisticated ways to enrich themselves by hiding risk and fooling investors."

The writer relates how nothing lasts forever and that "yesterday’s miracle economies have become today’s basket cases". He also includes Europe in the equation and relates how their economy is also declining due to a lack of exports.

The writer makes a solid argument as to the cause of the economic crisis, and even reminisces on the old days a bit.

Assignment #5 - K McWhirter

The article is entitled "Will: The continuing fall of federalism" and written by George F. Will of the Washington Post.

The article delas primarily with Feingold's amendment to the 17th Amendment. The writer was clear to alert the readers that John McCain is a "co-sponder" to this amendment - I wonder if the writer is a democrat? In my opinion, it seems likely that he is.

The writer was clear in his assertion that the power should be given to the people:
"Giving the states an important role in determining the composition of the federal government gave the states power to resist what has happened since 1913 — the progressive (in two senses) reduction of the states to administrative extensions of the federal government."

Feingold is "proud that Wisconsin is one of only four states that clearly require special elections of replacement senators in all circumstances, wants to impose Wisconsin’s preference on the other 46". The writer argues that if this happens, the power will more and more gradually be taken away from the people. I suppose I would have to agree.

Assignment #5 A.Ogle

The article Will "The continuing fall of Federalism" was written by George F. Will. This article's main purpose is to explain what Russ Feingold is doing. He is planning on working on the 17th Ammendment.
He is planning on working on how the senators are voted in. He wants the people to be able to have what they want. I believe that it is good to know that we could get what we want.

Assignment#5 A.Lowry

The article Will: "The continuing fall of Federalism" was written by George F. Will for the Washington Post. This article was written to help the understanding for readers of what Senator Russ Feingold is trying to do with the 17th Amendment.He is disbuting how congress mishandled the situation, and to the 17th amendment in how a senate member is voted in. This article is pretty much saying that give to the people for what they want.

In my opinion, yes everyone should have a say so of who they want to be voted in. But this was a very good informative argument and article for readers

Assignment # 5 - R. Ayers

George Will is a conservative, syndicated writer in Washington DC. He has a vast collection of awards including a Pulitzer. He is writing to an audience of conservative and mostly Republican readers. This article was written for the Washington Post and reprinted in The State, both newspapers having conservative views.

He is attempting to show the abuse to the 17th amendment in how a senate member is voted in under special circumstances. The 17th amendment is losing its checks and balances. He complains that the current way is far from what the writers of the constitution actually meant, but that was okay, because congress often rewrites as it wishes.

I personally love the quote, by George Will, “Being elected to Congress is regarded as being sent on a looting raid for one's friends”. This article is written in the same attitude as this quote, congress is busy doing whatever it really wants to and as much as it wants.

Assignment #5 - L. Bodie

*Please excuse the tardiness. We lost power around 6pm and just got it back about 30 minutes ago. I woke up as soon as it came back on and came out to finish my post. Thank you!*

The article, "The Continuing Fall of Federalism" was written by George F Will for the Washington Post. It is a pretty clear account of what is happening in states where mid-election Senate seats must be filled. It is interesting to me how, as he points out in the article, all "tampering" with the Constitution is always prefaced with a disclaimer that the person doesn't "really" want to tamper with it. It brings to mind the question, "Than why do it?"

It's obvious that the mid-election appointing of elected officials doesn't fall within the notion that the people elect their leaders. However, as stated in the article, the people are not the only ones considered "electors" for the sake of appointing officials. The people, the state legislators, and the Electoral College are all given the title and right to help choose our country's elected officials. It stands to reason, then, that in a case where a Senate seat is vacated prior to an election, that the state's legislators could then be given the chance to fill that seat (temporarily) until election time rolls around again.

Assignment #5- A.Perkins

"The Continuing Fall of Federalism" was written by George F. Will for The Washington Post. I believe this artice is directed to congress, but because they don't usually care about public opinion, the main audience is the public. This article was written to persuade the public that we still need a stake in our governmment.

The basic argument in this article was about how senators are appointed or elected. I would have to agree with Senator Russ Feingold in that a senator should be elected by the people. Our government was established "by the people, for the people". Everyone should have an opportunity to cast their vote on senate elections because those people are their to be everyone's voice.

Assignment # 5 C.Robertson

Will: The continuing fall of federalism was written by George F. Will and appeared in the Washington Post. This article was aimed towards the public in regards to the recent controversy involving the choice to fill the new senate seat and the 17th Amendment. I agree with Feingold in that no person shall be a Senator from a State unless such person has been elected by the people. I think that replacement or not, we the people should be able to have an impact on who is elected. I think this article was informative about this article and helped readers to better understand this situation and develop their own opinions based on facts.

Assignment #5 W. Bradner

The article "Will: The continuing fall of Federalism" was written by George F. Will for the Washington Post. This article was written to give readers more of an understanding of what Senator Russ Feingold is trying to do with the 17th Amendment. George F. Will is clearly biased against federalism and Senator Russ Feingold, which makes this article seem as if it is pursuading people against federalism rather ruthlessly. George F. Will is arguing that amending the 17th Amendment will push us as a country further away from our original goal.

Although this article is well informing, it is biased and a little harsh. But hey, you have to be harsh to get your point across these days. George F. Will does have a few strong points in there, and for the most part, I have to agree with Mr. Will.

Assignment #5 M E Mockridge

George F. Will is a Pulitzer Prize winning political philosophy writer whose work is highly regarded. He writes for Newsweek Magazine and contributes to and is syndicated in many newspapers throughout the country. This piece, The Continuing Fall of Federalism, was published in The State by way of The Washington Post.
Will is well known for his conservative championing of our constitution. He makes a powerful argument against Senator Russ Feingolds' proposal to interfere with states' senator selection processes. His ideas would further empower the Federal government while taking away state's rights. Forcing states to elect "replacement Senators" according to Washington D.C.s game plan is a recipe for disaster, as Will clearly explains. Will may be swimming against the tide here, since the Washington Post is read by a vastly liberal audience. Thank goodness his work is syndicated, so all people can benefit from his insight.
Mr. Feingold should be careful not to try and force Wisconsin's rules on the rest of the country. States rights and the checks and balances of our constitution have served us well for over 200 years. Uniformity is not our strong suit. Individuality IS.

Article #5 C Archie

I would first like to say thanks for the article choice. I know that in my last post I probably sounded like an ass. I am very happy to be speaking about something other than our national budget for once. Having said that, it may be that I am anti-government, but I don't believe that I am. I try to follow politics and watch the speeches to keep up with what is going on in our nation. The only problem is that it is an iceberg effect; what you see is probably only around fifteen percent of what is actually going on and the rest happens behind closed doors. In essence I love the spirit of our nation, but not the vast majority of those that run it.
I feel that this article embodies the idea that most politicians seek the power and money. However, being in league with major corporations and interest groups only creates power for an individual and not a nation. I believe that true power is freedom to do what you want to do, without money or any other strings attached. When these politicians accept these gifts from others they fall into someone else's pocket. How is this freedom or power? You are not at the mercy of someone else.
The government of our nation has too much power, as well as too much of the impression of power. There are too many government organizations and programs, and when people get elected some tend to forget the people that got them there. I believe Washington was right when he said that political parties would lead to the fall of our nation. There is too much bickering in Washington for any such bipartison group to come to any concensus. As I said before, I love our nation, but oh so hate our politicians.

Assignment #5-ACampbell

The informative but strongly opinionated article, "The Continuing Fall of Federalism" was posted on Sunday, Feb. 22,2009 to thestate.com. It was written by George F. Will and was directed to the people. This article discusses Senator Russ Feingold's solution to some governors recent bad behavior in appointing people to fill the senate vacancies. Feingold's solution for this is to change the 17th Amendment.

The author strongly disagrees with this solution by making an ironic remark that stated, "Feingold's amendment requiring elections to fill Senate vacanies will owe any traction in gains to Senate. Democrats' opposition to an elction to choose a replacement for Barack Obama. That opposition led to the ongoing Blagojevich-Burris fiasco. Although the author is indeed against this. The McCain Feingold and many others we successful in changing the Constitution.

Assignment #5 K. Tough

Wow, the articles are increasing in difficulty or my vocabulary is in need of an update. Reading George F. Will’s article “The continuing fall of federalism” required a little research; therefore, it is my contention that he is not realistically speaking to the general public. Although we may possess a vocabulary of thousands of words; in general, we do not employ them on a daily bases. This article was intended, as I understand it, to preach to the general public Mr. Will’s conservative thinking in reference to the election of Senators to fill vacant seats. Mr. Will’s article originally appeared in the Washington Post and was then picked up by The State here in SC. The State is read by almost all of our legislators and Senators, so maybe Mr. Will is actually speaking to them indirectly.
The majority of Americans are well aware of the issues that arose when Illinois attempted to fill the Senatorial vacancy left when President Obama became President. This issue is not foreign to us, but the idea of federalism is so antiquated that it is foreign to us. The comparison of a democracy to a direct democracy is also not one the majority of us are familiar with; unless of course you are enrolled in HIS 101. Most Americans would not take the time to read this article in its entirety if they were lost on the terminology, so Mr. Will’s point may be falling on deaf ears.
I am a little fearful to say this since our Professor chose this article, but why not amend the 17th Amendment? The Amendment was originally written to transfer the power to elect the Senate from the state legislatures to we the people; then, why not give it to us in total? This little side step in the Amendment appears to be another legal loophole in the wording of a bill that slid by on a vote of those who may not have read, or understood, the total content. If the idea of federalism, where a political system (we the people) defers power to someone else (our governor) is anachronistic than this policy of our governor appointing a Senator is also anachronistic. We can hold special elections for Sunday alcohol sales changing Blue Laws; why not a special election to fill an open Senate seat? In middle school I went on a field trip to the state house, I met my Senator and Legislators, and those who represented the people here in Clover where I was about to move. I will never forget what Herb Kirsh said to me when I suggested that he visit a classroom of today; “No one, not even the public I represent have the right to force me to visit a school.” Wow, he is still in office, he has out done Strom Thurmond and is still there. It is this type of thinking; the idea that representatives are there to serve their agenda that pushes people to believe in a more direct democracy. I understand that Mr. Will sees us in much the same manner as Plato did, but we are capable of determining who is best prepared to serve our needs in Washington.
I understand the example Blagojevich-Burris drawing so much attention, but that was not a fiasco due to the American people; that was a fiasco due to politicians. Four of the Senate selections after President Obama took office have been made not for the people, but for the politicians. The Roland Burris issue is well known, but what about the one in Colorado where everyone was so upset because a school superintendent who knew nothing of the political process was appointed. Senator Clinton’s seat in NY caused a big stir when Caroline Kennedy was considered and then the Governor chose Representative Gillibrand and that has been a controversy too. What about the deal that Kauffman will keep the Senate seat warm until Biden’s son can take over, is that for the people or the politicians? I am not an advocate for stripping politicians of all of their power, but I do believe they often forget who put them where they are and why. Although I may be a liberal where this issue is concerned I also am realistic and know the amendment will not pass. In order for constitutional amendment to pass it requires a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate, and ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures.

Assignment #5 S Alt

"The continuing fall of federalism" was written by George F. Will for the Washington Post. It was written to describe Senators McCain and Feingold's proposed 17th Amendment change. This was clearly brought into focus by the recent fiasco over President Obama's replacement in the senate. Personally, I agree with the change in the 17th amendment. Why is it that the people elect a senator, and if he needs a replacement, the governor is the one to provide a substitute? Shouldn't it simply be one or the other? If the people elected both the senator and the one who provides a substitute, why can't the people elect a replacement? However, I believe the governor should choose a replacement senator, and after one year, people should be able to vote on whether they like the job he's doing or not.

Assignment #5 A Liaghat

The article "The Continuing Fall of Federalism" written by George F Will is an interesting piece that appeared in the opinions editorial section of The State as well as in the Washington Post. Mr Will describes how the new proposal by Senators McCain and Feingold is not only bad idea but also may be eroding away some of the principles upon which our country and constitution are founded. I especially found it intriguing that McCain-Feingold are proposing a restriction of time, quantity and content of political speeches. Personally any form of regulation on speech is not only repugnant but truly terrifying. Once speech is regulated by the government it is only a short step to controlling many other aspects of our lives and Big Brother watching.

The article, which is an opinion, is well written, thorough, and informative. Mr Will is a regular contributor to the Washington Post dealing primarily in foreign and domestic politics. This article is primarily written to the mass public and those people of voting age, because it is so essential that those of us who do participate in the political process are well informed.

Assignment #5 T Gombar

George F. Will wrote “Will: The continuing fall of federalism” for the Washington Post. I believe this article was written to inform people of the changes that Senator Russ Feingold is trying to make to the 17th Amendment, and also to convince readers that this is a very bad thing. The author is clearly against this idea, because the article is very one sided, even insulting to the Senator.

The argument that he is trying to make is that making these changes pushes us farther away from the original intention of the Constitution, which also pushes us farther away from federalism.

Tara Gombar

Assignment #4--A Campbell

This article is entitled “States and Cities in Scramble for Stimulus Cash” written on February 16, 2009, by Monica Davey of the New York Times. This is a very interesting article to me and I think it is by far the most interesting article we have all read yet. It really gives you a great idea as to want is going on in the economy behind almost closed doors.
This article is speaking to the people of America to allow them to know the whole truth about the stimulus packages. It is letting American’s know what some states are planning on doing with it and if a certain state isn’t really to have the money immediately hooked on a project, then they may receive none at all. In a way it almost made our legislatures look greedy to me, but at the same time, it almost makes it seem like over a trillion dollars isn’t enough. I am very amazed by a fact that was stated in this article saying, “For every job the bill creates, American taxpayers will spend $223,000,” written by Mr. Sanford. This amazes me in so many different ways, being that, yes we need to create jobs but should it really cost $223,000 to do so? It seems a little outrageously pricey to me.

Assignment #4 - L. Bodie

This was a very interesting article on the aftermath of the stimulus package. It is written by Monica Davey for the NY Times, and is an interesting view on the effects of all this money being pumped into our economy on a state-by-state level. It had not occurred to me that the stimulus package would not be an across-the-board type program. Once the details were released, it became clear that each state and program would have to vie for their piece of the pie.

I'm curious to see not only how each state fights for their "fair share", but how the taxpayers in each state respond to the decisions of their elected leaders. The backlash has already begun in South Carolina in response to the idea that all the potential money coming into the state has been declined. Other states will feel the effects as well as their leaders try to get the money that they want for the programs that they feel are important - regardless of whether or not everyone is in agreement. Also, there are many states that are not in the red in certain areas, which means they might not get the funding that other states are getting; basically being punished for doing a job right in the first place. This certainly doesn't seem fair!

Assignment #4 A Liaghat

In the article "States and Cities in Scramble for Stimulus Cash" the author Monica Davey gives a fairly neutral accounting of the different difficulties and benefits that the local level governments are dealing with when looking at the new stimulus package. This article, which appears in the NY Times, is very even handed and fair when looking at both some of the pros and con's of the current stimulus package. Ms Davey points out that while some states are looking to this as lifeline others are openly skeptical that it will help, some are even convinced that it might do more harm than good. This article does a very good job how the local governments are reacting to the new package, giving both sides of the story, as well as pointing out that even those places that are looking forward to the stimulus are still having to sort out some of the difficulties of actually getting the money.

Ms Davey explains that the money that the various state and local governments are expecting are coming with some unexpected strings attached, and everybody is currently trying to figure them out. In addition to this is the fact that there will be friction between the different levels of government within each state due to everyone attempting to get their piece of the pie. As Ms Davey points out this will still be a political decision which might mean that the area's that truly deserve it may or may not get it. In addition, while the money is going to be spent by the states, even then they don't get to make all of the decisions about how it will be spent, instead someone in Washington will be doing some of this creating more tension.

From the tone of this article it is clear that while the stimulus package may have answered some questions for people it has opened the door to a flood of more questions that as of yet do not have answers. Hopefully state, local, and national governments will be able to answer these questions quickly and get the money to those who need it and to where it will do the most good. And hopefully, some of the worst of the political undertones will be put aside in light of the current economic state and people will look to do the right thing.

K. Tough Assignment #4

Monica Davey is attempting to give local citizens a heads up regarding local and state battles that will, and have begun to, ensue over President Obama’s stimulus package. In “States and Cities in Scramble for Stimulus Cash” in the NY Times the reader is given enough information from both Democrats and Republicans, and national and state leaders to understand some of the intricacies of the one hundred page package few are able to weed through. On our local news we have already begun to hear many of the arguments and pleas for funding on specific projects in and out of our area. The bill has not even been signed yet and already Mayors in North Carolina are via for transportation funds. Our governor in South Carolina has always been opposed to any pork spending, even if it creates jobs, because as he is once again saying; in the long run we the taxpayers will be footing the bill for federal pork-barrel spending. I am not sure if all Republicans, or SC citizens, are on board with what Sanford is saying. Seeing our state funds cut across the board to balance the state budget while other states are requesting funds for items like ATV park trails in California is a tough stance to hold. As the case often is, we must allow our elected leaders to make some difficult decisions and only hope they are the best decisions for all citizens in our state.
I know the purpose of Davey’s article was not to point out South Carolina specifically, but to make the average American aware of the battles yet to come before we begin to see any of the promises of the stimulus bill come to fruition. I just can’t get past the thought of Bobby Harrell and the Finance Committee planning the jobs they would create for our state, and then discovering Governor Sanford will not participate in the groveling for federal funds allocated through the stimulus package.
Davey does write for the NY Times, so she may be a little bias to the left, but I did not hear that in the tone of this article. Davey appears to be a straight up political writer who is just trying to break down one piece of this giant puzzle the President calls a stimulus package. The aspect of this article is that caught my attention right off is that it really is written to and for Joe citizen; very unique for the NY Times.

Assignment# 4 A.Lowry

In this article "States and Cities scramble for stimulus cash", by Monica Davey written for the New York Times. This Article Basically states how the stimulus package would be distrubuted among the states of the America, and divided. I still feel as if the stimulus will not give total relief to America nor create opportunities in a hurry. These high top dog Politicians act as if theres no hurry to bring this once powerful nation back to its throne. I hope the government and local leaders will examine one's state and see where were hurting at. Insert the stimulus's benefits and get a positive outcome effect on state as well as the whole country.
Therefore; we should really be careful of where the stimulus cash is going and not go to some areas of the country where wealth is already there. This stimulus package will hopefully and gradually progress this country in rebuild mode.

Assignment #4 APerkins

The article "States and Cities in Scramble for Stimulus Cash" was written by Monica Davey for The New York Times. The audience this article is written for is all the people who are curious about how this stimulus package is going to work, and the basic idea of the article is to try and explain some of the ideas and plans. This article was written to explain some ways the government is intending to spend the money, how it will be split, and some of the many problems it may cause.

I don't know how our government thinks this stimulus is going to work because it seems that everyone has a different idea about it. Ms. Davey seems to be fairly neutral; she is just giving the facts about the plans and ideas that some officials have. I think I would have to agree with Mark Sanford because I believe the stimulus package is going to cause a great deal of trouble between U.S. politicians, and I also think it will end up costing us more than we will gain. States will be going against each other to receive more money in a time when we should be uniting to help one another. The last thing we need right now is to stand alone and create more debt for ourselves. How will it be decided who gets what? Each decision will be risky because they will never know if it's the right one until it's too late.

Assignment #4 - C Strickland

This is an interesting article, because it brings up a very good point. The dividing of the stimulus money will, I believe, prove to be a painful and seemingly unjust process. I feel that it will be painful because of all of the politicians that will be involved. I do not think that two politicians could agree on what to have for lunch, much less how to spend government money. Once the decision is made of how to split the money, there will be a large group of individuals that will feel that they were left out, or short-changed on the money. Which will lead to wide-spread feelings of distrust in out government, at the worst possible time? Not to mention, how will the management of the spending take place? Who will be responsible to hold the state and county governments responsible for their actions?
These are questions that I believe the author wants to bring to the attention of the non-political audience that read the New York Times. I personally feel that no matter how or what is done, there will be a large amount of people that will not be happy with the result. I hope that this is not the case, and that it does give our economy the boost that it needs.

Assignment #4 A. Ogle

The article "States and Cities Scramble for Stimulus Cash" was written to explain what the government is planning on doing with getting stimulus money. The article was published in the NY Times by Monica Davey. The author seems to be a fairly neutral writer about this topic.

The author of this article is basically just laying it out for readers to know and understand what the president and congress are planning on doing with the money. The positives and negatives of the stimulus money are discussed.

Positive aspects include mainly revolve around the creation of new and more jobs for many states. The main negative about the plans is that the money distribution is not fair in some people's eyes.

In my opinion, it doesn't matter who gets how much, but how the economy will grow as a whole. As long as things get better gradually, things are going well.

Assignment #4 W. Bradner

The article "States and Cities in Scramble for Stimulus Cash" by Monica Davey was written for The New York Times. "States and Cities in Scramble for Stimulus Cash" was written for anyone interested in how the stimulus package will be divided among states, cities, and counties. This article was written to inform everyone of the ongoing problems with the stimulus package. Now that the stimulus package is through its first few stages, the next stage is figuring out how the money will be divided and who will divide it. Davey points out that even the state officials are unsure as to how much money they will receive. Some state officials are concerned that they will not receive as much money as needed for certain things such as education, alternative energy, and road construction. And the question is always there: Does the senate have enough knowledge about your state/community needs to give/take from it?

I think there is a reason to be concerned. Not knowing how much of the stimulus package that your state/county/city will receive can be troubling, but since the general public does not have much of a say so in the stimulus package anyways, it makes it less concerning. I guess it depends on what state official you have. If you have someone concerned more about alternative energy than education, then your state will probably show that.

Assignment #4 C Archie

I know this is a history course, and I know that the economy is the most important issue happening in our world today, but how many times can I write on this topic speaking about the same thing every week? This article pretty much sums up what we could all see coming. Politicians will end up making the major decisions on where the money goes, and we all know they have everyone's best wishes in heart when making decisions. Give me a break already, this is going to turn into so many lawsuits and feuds that most of the money will probably end up getting lost in the system before it makes it to any job sites. Good job politicians in Washington...
Let's not forget the fact that putting all of this money in the system will only lower our worth as a nation. How much is our dollar compared to the euro these days? With all due respect, this plan will not follow a golden path to success. Money is the root of all evil and we just put a lot of it in the wrong hands. States will battle states and local leaders will be fighting with those around them when what we really need is less greed and more action. There are too many unanswered questions and a lot that ticks me off about this entire thing. Like the fact that some places won't get funding for vital programs because they are not as advanced as other states. Take for instance the alternative energy crisis, the idea of not giving money to certain states will only widen the gap between them and everyone else, pushing them further down the wrong path.
Excuse me for saying this, but I realize I probably sound like an ass in this blog but it infuriates me to no end. The Baby Boom generation is going to wreck Social Security and now my generation and those a few years ahead of me are going to plunge this nation into a darker hole for those coming after us. We push these grand ideals and put a pretty face on the fact that it isn't such an easy road to take. Look where we are these days, the nation is getting worse and I am sorry Mr. President but I don't think America will see the benefits of the stimulus within a few weeks; except for the all-out brawl that is about to take place between the money-grubbers.

Assignment #4 S Alt

The article "States and Cities Scramble for Stimulus Cash" was written for the New York Times by Monica Davey. It was written to inform the readers about what politicians at different levels of government are doing in regards to getting stimulus money. The author is not particularly catering to either side of the political spectrum but is rather attempting to paint the picture of the mad dash for federal money.

I've heard it before reading the article, and yet it never fails to infuriate at how moronic elected officials can be. When the economy collapses and people lose their jobs and homes, the imbecilic governor that people from the boondocks that McCain and the Republicans oh so love to cater to elected outright refuses to accept stimulus money. It's passed, the matter's over, and Sanford will simply have grin and bear it. Accepting money to repair infrastructure is outright irresponsible and I sincerely wish from the bottom of my heart that he would be thrown out of office. Has he seen how bad off the worst schools in the state are, much less the roads and sewage treatment systems? Does he not understand that by accepting money for infrastructure repair you have to, oh gee, I dunno, hire someone to fix your problems, therefore creating jobs that help eliminate the problem of joblessness? Who voted for this incompetent joke? I've never had much faith in politicians to begin with, but doing something so deliberately ignorant, so outright childish and so despicably lazy is a whole other issue than simply going with what your party tells you to. Take Arnold Schwarzenegger for example. He's a Republican governor and yet he's accepting cash for his state. He's getting political backlash from it, but he doesn't care because he knows it's what's right for the people. Sanford should either take a hint or take a hike.

Assignment # 4 ME Mockridge

In her article, " States and Cities Scramble for Stimulus Cash", written for the N.Y. Times, Monica Davey lays out some of the details of President Obama's spending plan for our country. In particular, she addresses the impact it will have on individual states and cities. I believe that Davey is trying to inform the general public about this, since no one, not even our senators and congressmen who voted on it, know any specifics about it. I think she does an excellent job in presenting the facts in a fair and balanced way.
In my opinion, Ms. Davey's piece highlights all the things that are wrong with this spending spree. It discourages welfare reform by punishing states for trying to reduce Medicaid spending and fosters division between governors and their states' legislative bodies. It promotes hasty decision making and opens the door for cronyism and corruption with so many government contracts up for bid. It makes cities and states more beholden to the Federal Government. This erosion of states' rights is bringing us even closer to the extinction of our United States as we know it.
I fear that if this massive amount of money is not distributed in an equitable fashion, we may witness civil unrest not seen since the 1960's. The rumblings of the silent majority are all ready starting. President Obama and his party would do well to listen before it becomes a roar.

Assignment # 4 T Gombar

Monica Davey wrote the article “States and Cities in Scramble for Stimulus Cash” for the New York Times. I believe this article was written to inform the American people how the stimulus bill will work. There are positives and negatives. It will help states start projects creating thousands of new jobs. Some states already have a list of projects, which is good because this article states that in order for the bill to work the money will have to be put to use immediately. Some states will be getting more money than others though, which not everyone likes. The states with not as large of a deficit will not get as much money which is not necessarily “fair” to everyone. They feel like they will be penalized for not being as broke as other states.

I think the main objective of this article is just to let the people know how the money is going to be split up and that not everyone is on board with this plan but hopefully everyone will appreciate the outcome. In times like this new jobs are a very good thing, regardless of how we get them. Eventually the spending will come full circle, less people will be out of work, and less people will be losing their homes.

Tara Gombar

Blog 4 Roxanne Ayers

The article was published in the NY Times, a very politically liberal newspaper and written by Monica Davey, who seemed to write the article with a mostly neutral ‘pen’. The liberal audience of this newspaper would agree with the facts presented by Ms. Davey and probably wonder why she wasn’t harsher to SC Governor Mark Sanford. The old saying ‘once a trouble maker, always a trouble maker’ comes to my mind, and South Carolina always seems to be in the fore front of controversy. I don’t think Governor Sanford is wrong though, this stimulus package costs more that it is really worth.

The basic argument the author makes in her article is that there is a lot of money from the federal government up for grabs and there will be fighting over who gets it and how much they will get. I have already heard Pat McCrory, our neighbors to the north, Charlotte’s Mayor, complain how Raleigh is going to shortchange Charlotte when it comes to road money. I think we should expect the stimulus to proceed exactly like an old rich uncle dying and leaving a lot of money to a group, without specifying who will get exactly what based on behavior or need. Everyone has their hand out - this kind and this large of a stimulus is a dangerous precedent in my opinion - and there will be costly repercussions, both financially and socially from this stimulus.

Assignment #4 Ken McWhirter

This stimulus package is record-breaking when compared with recent years. Many companies and different divisions are already making plans as to how they will spend the money. I thought the following statement was important:
"While states will have direct say on the use of much of the money — especially on infrastructure projects like roads and bridges — many spending decisions will still rest with officials hundreds of miles away in Washington." It really shows that although the money is being dispersed in different areas, the buck still stops in Washington.

The author also make the point that the stimulus may cause political conflict between various entities. Additionally, some parties are firmly against the bill, such as Mark Sanford here in the state of South Carolina.

Reporting for the article was contributed by Robbie Brown, Michael Cooper, David M. Herszenhorn and Robert Pear.

Assignment #4 C.Robertson

States and Cities in Scramble for Stimulus Cash by Monica Davey pointed out that state legislatures and mayors are already planning out what they will be spending their stimulus money on. This article in the New York Times was aimed towards Americans to furter inform them of the passing and plans for the stimulus bill. Infastructure seems to be of concern to many states and that is made obvious in this article. Transportation improvements are also in the plans for some states which is expected to create new jobs. Political arguments over the money are also predicted concerning how to spend the money. The article also presents to readers that every job created from this bill will eventually cost taxpayers. The fact that the author brought to the readers attention that the amount of the stimulus bill could create the 15th largest country in the world really put the drastic amount of help needed for our economy into perspective, and I believe that was Monica Davey's purpose with that statement inserted from Mark Sanford. In my opinion, prioritizing properly will make the most difference with the passing of this bill.

Assignment #3 Ken McWhirter

I think the authors statement: "We want the most bang for the buck." sums up the jest of the material. The reader is also trying to get us to think smaller - this carrying the idea of multiple smaller acts as supposed to larger acts.

The author makes the point "Thinking small is a hard sell, especially after we were exhorted to dream of big things of lasting significance." I suppose I agree with this statement on some level...obviously dramatic change will need to take place to get things back on track.

The article appeared on CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS and was written by Madison Powers. Madison Powers is Senior Research Scholar at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University. His column appears weekly in CQ Politics. Beginning next week, his column will appear on Fridays.

Assignment # 3 Roxanne Ayers

Madison Powers is the author of this article, she is a guest columnist for CQ, CQ is a news source that gives nonpartisan coverage of congressional activities. The audience is looking more for fact, or accounting than opinion and I believe she delivers that. She writes that economists “no longer debate whether we should be Keynesians; we now debate how to be really good Keynesians.” Keynesians believe that the government has a role and a responsibility in the economy, first seen in action during Roosevelt’s ‘New Deal’.

Congress has agreed that money needs to be spent, where can they spend it to get the maximum effect is the question facing them right now. A difficult question – Who gets to survive? Who is going to be thrown to the wolves? When the government gives the banks huge bailouts, and yet we see those same banks tightening the general public’s credit accounts, rising interests rate, and high fees for late payments - it’s easy enough to guess who will benefit the most from the financial stimulus. Maybe that it what she meant about inequality to weather the storm.

It’s going to be very difficult for congress to trim out what most of us consider to be extras from the huge stimulus they are considering, it is clear to most people that special interest groups have become more important than the average citizen.

Assignment #3--A. Campbell

The article “Trade-Offs in the Stimulus Package is written by Madison Powers, a Senior Research Scholar at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University. Madison’s column appears weekly in CQ Politics. This column was written in Congressional Quarters which is an online magazine. This article was written to discuss 1 trillion dollar stimulus package proposed by our president Barrack Obama. It spoke directly to American people and seemed to be very informative but yet argumentative as well.
The author looks at the main points of the package and as well as Americans disagreements of it. One of his major arguments is one of many Americans. This argument is that the government needs to intervene with our countries finances, which I agree with a lot. I think they need to intervene with the banks finances as well though and look for the root of the problem and start there meaning the start of all the economic disaster we are in.

Assignment#3

In "Trade-Offs in the Stimulus Package" written by Madsion. The author talks about how the stimulus package tries to bring the middle working class up from being a no working class. His basic plan is to take money away from the rich, and that definition of rich keeps changing, and give more money to the poor and working class people. The economy is in desperate needs of the stimulus package and hopefully it will uplift the economy and benefit all the citizens of America. And for once, The United States should work together and stop with the whole republican/democratic deal, and get this country out of the hole.

Assignment #3 - C Strickland

Spending a lot of money on a lot of projects versus spending that same amount of money on a few projects is what the author of this article wants to bring to out attention. He points out that a number of economist believe that a large number of smaller project will be more beneficial that a handful of larger projects. I have to agree on this issue for the simple fact that I can not imagine that one or two major projects could have the same effect on the national economy as a large group of spread out smaller projects. The smaller projects would impact different groups of Americans in different areas of the US. Therefore, I believe, more local economies would benefit from this.
I do wonder, however, if the management of these projects, large or small, will be managed like the financial bailout, where there was virtually no oversight by the government on the companies that barrowed the money. If this is the case then, I do not think that any amount of money or projects will be enough to help this economy.

Assignment #3 APerkins

"Trade-Offs in the Stimulus Package" was written by Madsion Powers for the Congressional Quarterly, an online political magazine. The article was about the stimulus package the government is proposing and its effects on our economy and finances.

The author's article was directed toward all Americans, to inform us of the stimulus package details, and what it will do for our economy. The basic argument the author was trying to make is that the government needs to intervene with the country's finances. It may be small changes, but they will eventually make a big change in our failing economy. The author wrote this article because Americans need to understand what the stimulus plan is and what it's supposed to do for our country's financial failings. We need to understand how to make the plan work for us.

Assignment #3 C.Robertson

Trade-Offs in the Stimulus Package by Madison Powers appeared in CQ Politics and it discussed the proposed Stimulus package that our nation is facing. This article was written to discuss and explore the possible outcomes of the stimulus deal. It is aimed towards Americans and presents a clarified description to better understand the Stimulus package. There are many different ideas floating around amongst American citizens as to what may become of our economy, stimulus or no stimulus, and this article helps to clarify and explore some of these options.

Obviously, citizens want the fastest and safest way to fix the Financial crisis our nation is facing. In my opinion, we need a fix that will not drastically increase our already outrageous national debt and provide long-term relief. I have a feeling that spending trillions of dollars that the country doesn't have is going to hurt us in the long-run, but I also know that something needs to be done.

Assignment #3 ME Mockridge

Madison Powers, professor at the Kennedy Center Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University, is a guest columnist for CQ Politics. CQ Politics reports on congressional happenings in a fairly non partisan way. In his article, Trade-Offs in the Stimulus Plan, Powers seems to be talking to the entire U. S. population ,appealing to them to look at all the items in this stimulus bill, both big and small. He addresses the Stimulus Bill in concise fashion, looking at it from a business perspective. How refreshing! His article is the first I've read that relates government dollars spent to dollars pumped back into the economy.
I disagree with his assertion that we have all become Keynesians. Scores of economists dispute the governments' involvement in our economy. I tend to agree with those experts, believing that while painful, recovery can be had by letting the markets work themselves out of this recession. I also see a contradiction in Powers'agruments.He supports propping up state budgets and strengthening their vulnerable pension plans, but he does not seem to support corporate tax cuts. What does Mr. Powers think those pension funds invest in? They invest in corporate America! The success of our country lies in the success of our businesses. Can Mr. Powers say "trickle down" ?
I must say, however, that I applaud Powers' observation that government seems incabable of doing many small projects, instead of large ones. Didn't this spending bill start out at a measley $40 billion?
Now that this bill is certain to become law, I hope there is a revitalization in our economy. I have serious doubts, though. My gut feeling tells me this not the answer.I believe that this bill is a thinly disguised step, no, LEAP, towards socialism, and for the first time in my adult life I am truly frightened about the future of this country.

Assignment #3 A. Ogle

The article "Trade-Offs in the Stimulus Package" was written by Madison Powers. Basically, this article was written to explain the Stimulus Package and give people a better understanding. The information is helpful and meant to lower the amount of concerns that people have involving the Stimulus Package.
Concerns people have are valid. The Package's main goal is to take care of a lot of little problems we are facing. People are worried about the big problems not being addressed. The fact of the matter is that the little problems will add up and make it count. The big problems will need time and energy to be fixed. It all can't be done at once.
The article was good in that it is explaining to people that everything won't be taken care of over night. Change will come. Change will come over time!

Assignment #3 - L. Bodie

The article "Trade-Offs in the Stimulus Package" was written by Madison Powers and is an attempt to overview and explain some of the inner workings of the new stimulus package. This is most likely to present it to the common American citizen so they might feel a little more connected to what is at stake, as well as better understand what is actually being done with the money.

So, the question is this: is it better the present certain large interests the sums of money they require to remain afloat, and then hope it trickles down to the rest of America, or is it better to take the enormous sum of money and divided it up among the masses in a way that will give us visible return more quickly? This article is presented to explain why the choice is the latter, and I think it does a good job. Anything over a million dollars is somewhat hard to fathom for the average citizen. A billion is even more difficult to imagine, and a trillion is near impossible. It does help, though, to see that this money is being divided up into smaller portions and given out amongst the states, federal and state funded programs, and other SMALLER economic interests. This makes it a little easier to swallow - rather than picturing some CEO pocketing a billion dollars of our money and then walking away. I think this article did a great job of presenting some details of the plan in a way that make it more accessible.

Assignment # 3 C Archie

The article "Trade-Offs in the Stimulus Package", is great for what it's worth. Questioning whether to think big and watch the money trickle outward to everyone, or to go after smaller projects that could use the money quickly. It's hard to decide but the longer they wait the more time everybody has with no money whatsoever. If our state doesn't get money within the near future what else can they cut? Education has already taken a big hit; with the way this state has been for so many years now I feel that is the last thing we need to think of reducing funds for.
I feel that attacking the small projects with the most force is best for our country. We don't need the better roads to drive our cars on if nobody can afford one in the first place. Having a home and a car is an American Dream and with so many people losing half of that battle how can we focus on infrastructure. The working class needs job security and then they will start spending money. The jobs need to be stable, we do not need anymore government works programs to plunge our national debt even further.

Assignment #3 W. Bradner

The article "Trade-Offs in the Stimulus Package" was written by Madison Powers for CQPolitics.com. This article was primarily written to ease people's anxiety about the stimulus package. Most people feel that the stimulus package should be all about fixing the "big" problems, not the little problems, and they feel that the package has a lot of money going to smaller problems and not enough going towards a "big fix." Powers suggests that this is what the stimulus package was intended to do; fix a lot of little problems.

Madison Powers is right about the stimulus package. There will be many small problems that will be fixed with the package. Although that won't be what a lot of people are looking for at first, I think that (as well as Powers thinks that) it will be a better option and one that is better for the years to come.

Assignment #3 T Gombar

Madison Powers wrote the article “Trade-Offs in the Stimulus Package” for CQPolitics.com. He is a Senior Research Scholar at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics for Georgetown University. I believe this article was written to help explain the stimulus package in a way that is more understandable for the American people who may not be very savvy when it comes to politics. Some news channels and other articles are so vague when it comes to exactly what this stimulus bill will do exactly. I thought this article was very well written and helped me understand a little bit more, of what this will do.

I think this article will also to let people know that this bill is not going to produce an immediate change. These will be small changes that will begin to put America in the right direction, but this will not fix everything. Hopefully, this is the beginning and the worst is behind us. We can only wait and see what the outcome will be, because no one can say for sure what will happen.

Tara Gombar

Assignment #3 K Tough

Let me first admit defeat with regard to the article “Trade-Offs in the Stimulus Package” by Madison Powers. It appears Powers is addressing the common person, the average citizen of the U.S. who is trying to get a handle on the stimulus package presented by and to the House and Senate; but on first read it is difficult to weed through his terminology and digest the true point of the article. After three reads I may have a picture of his persuasive point and a hint of his sarcasm too. The way I see it is Powers wants the people to get behind the idea of planting seeds in each and every state, city and town in the U.S. to give us each a future to produce something with the stimulus package. This is not a long term production since we will need to cultivate the seed to a tree that bears fruit and later seeds for further production, but it is a start. I also understand that Powers wants us to look at planting now; not in the future.
I think our state is doing this with proposals to complete Pennies for Progress projects that have run out of money, and other projects discontinued due to lack of funds. Initiating new jobs at enlarging state employment facilities is another budget item on hold. I am not sure Bobby Harrell and his committee want to do this in our state, so maybe Powers should have directed his argument to those who would grasp his jargon quicker; such as, our legislators, and representatives in D.C. I am as frustrated as Powers at the constant “rising up of all boats” as opposed to “fixing the leaks”. We see middle class families facing the issues our government is avoiding by deferring to retain equity and refinance their homes to place more funds in the economy. Is this a wise decision? Maybe not, but it is what our economy needs to refuel spending and keep the leaks patched while we wait for the tide to lift all of our boats. The message here is to spread the wealth, and if we have learned nothing from our Greek ancestors it is that the poor need to be cared for and it is often the rich who will suffer. Instead of catering to the nobles and increasing the wealth of large corporations with CEO’s over six figures in salaries; it may be time to share the land and allow the majority an opportunity to repair their leaking row boat instead of refueling the yacht’s of the rich and powerful.
I am with Powers and hope his message has reached those who need to hear it. Powers appears to be an opinion columnist who has researched the stimulus package and broken it down from the constant revisions between House and Senate; this is only his interpretation though. I understand as Powers pointed out that it is difficult for both Republicans and Democrats to release these little seeds of money to each state and trust we will care for them, yet the people did elect our state leaders also. We have trusted our state leaders with our income and taxes; therefore, it is inconceivable why our leaders in D.C. would not trust them to care for our future by investing a small amount of funds to spur us on financially. Is it micromanagement in Washington?

Assignment #3 A Liaghat

The article "Trade-Offs in the Stimulus Package" is designed to illustrate both sides of the political and economic arguments that are being debated on the Houses' stimulus package. The author Madison Powers, who has a background in philosophy and law and who has a history of researching just this sort of topic, does an excellent job weighing the opposed sides of the two most debated aspects of the bill. In looking at if the dollars that are being spent will return at a higher rate, hence stimulating the economy, Mr Madison also discusses if it is wise to invest in just a few areas that are known to produce the return that is wanted or if it might be better to spread out the money in some new and unexpected ways. Also discussed is whether the bill has enough big infrastructure components or if that money is going to be invested in a more nontraditional way. The article which appears in the CQ, which is a magazine know for its through and well documented following of politics in Washington, is well written, very fair and balanced, and well thought out.

Nobody knows exactly what is going to happen, or even if this stimulus package will help, but most of us hope that it does. The status quo has not been working, but that does not necessarily mean that we need to go back to the New Deal days. The New Deal worked during it's time because that is what our country needed at the time, Congress needs to look at what we need in our time and decide how to best accomplish that. Just because something worked in a specific situation before does not mean it is the answer to all the problems. And the debate in Congress should continue until such a time as they feel they have the best package for the country as a whole, not their specific political parties.

Assignment #3 S Alt

The article "Trade-offs in the Stimulus Package" is an article written by Madison Powers for CQpolitics.com. It was written to give an overview of the problems carried within the stimulus bill, and the overall basics of it. The author is trying to show both sides of the fence by illustrating what Congress must consider when writing the package into stone. They have to consider if everything would pay off, and if we can actually weather this storm.

When Roosevelt's New Deal was still fresh, it created many government organizations to care for the people. It provided people with jobs, and that's exactly what we need right now. National unemployment is over 7%. There are going to be a lot of strange projects included in the stimulus, but what really matters is if those projects will produce jobs.

Assignment #2 A Campbell

This article is titled Government has to make choices families, businesses don't. It was posted in "The State" on January 22, 2009 but the Associate Editor, Cindi Scoppe. This particular article is directed to everyone overall, but mainly South Carolinians, businesses, families, business owners and consumers. This article was written to focus on the economic problem and the negative effects it is having on our society. It also point out a valid point "Government does not have the right to ignore the consequences its actions have on the economy". I agree with this and I believe that the American people agree with this as well considering the consequences that there actions have had on us.
The basic argument the author overall is that this needs to be fixed. Sacrifices need to be made to help our economy and it needs to be made in the governments lives not the people. The people already pay taxes, not that the government doesn't but the people could use their money more than anything at a time like this, so raising taxes are out of the question. The author throws out some ideas concerning how to handle this problem such as cutting pay raises to reduce layoffs.

Assignment #2 C Archie

From the title of this article I can't decide if the author is confronting the federal government or saying that they have to make the decisions that others can't. Of course there is no easy answer to our economic problems, but ambiguity just makes it worse. I feel that at this point in our situation the businesses and families should have come up with their financial plans and begun to put them into action. This is not the time to debate, that should be done with. For what happens tomorrow you should have already set up for.
In this article I see a lot of fence-sitting and that concerns me. Of course there is a good and bad side to whichever action is considered but this is too much. For the economy to recover we need to have the confidence to do what needs to be done. This article just raises questions that could make some people decide to do nothing.
I see too much doubt in the economy in this article. Yes, this is a bad time and some doubt is always going to be there, but if it wasn't for the media interpretation I feel that some of this can be averted. This is a good, true article, I just feel that it could have been written in a better manner.

Assignment #2 - C Strickland

This article is meant to show that a governmental entity does not have the same choices that families and business' have. As a family, spending can be controlled without regard as to what affect it has on local business. Local and State government on the other hand do not have the luxury of ignoring the effects of their decisions on other groups of people. I currently work for an automotive supplier and I am one of those that go day by day wondering (not worrying) if I will be let go. All my department can do is push through projects that will save the company money and hope that something or someone will change the demand for our product. I'm not sure that there is anything that the government can do, maybe this is just a cycle that the country, and the world, needs to go through to reset everything.
The autor makes many good points about the current situation, and I am not sure of any certain answer.I personally hope that something changes in the near future that will put the USA heading back in the right direction.

Assignment # 2 JCatoe

The article Government has to make choices families businesses don't was written by Cindi Ross Scoppe, an associate editor for The State, South Carolina's primary newspaper. This article was written on Jan. 22 2009 at which time Congress was debating on the passage of the Stimulus Bill which will affect the entire Nation. Her audience is primarily the readers of the State, but opens up to every business owner, consumer, and worker in the U.S as well as in S.C..
Her arguement is complex but valid. Ms Scoppe compares the decisions the government makes (in regards to the ailing economy) on the National level, to State, business and family life in these hard economic times.
She points out that the National government can make more drastic decisions now- and not worry as much on the immediate impact of those decisions- the future generations can and will be held responsible for paying debt as it accrues.
The State governments decisions are much more complex as they affect the very businesses and emloyees that are worried about their survival in the tough economic times. If the State chooses to raise taxes- response from consumers will be reduce spending- hurting the local businesses. If cutting taxes- this will still effect workers just on the state level.
The best question to ponder is : Is it better for fewer people to have more money or for more people to have less money in the long run?
There has to be a common ground to this question-I feel that all should have an opportunity to make money, amount of which should be based on your skills and qualifications and job involved.
The basic point is to show how complex and difficult forming the State's budget really is, and in tough economic times forming policies to benefit all is even more so.

Assignment #2 A. Ogle

The article "Government has to make choices families, businesses don't" was written by Cindi Ross Scoppe and appeared in "The State". This particular South Carolina paper is written to give information to those that live in South Carolina, or those interested in what is going on around here.
This particular article's purpose is to shed light on things going on in the local government. The biggest topics are those related to choices and decisions being made, and those that need to be made by the local government.
The main point of making these decisions is to have the most positive results for the community. Most issues brought up in this article are those of finances. It is up to the local government to make the best decisions for individual citizens and the community as a whole.
Positive and negative results come about after each final action is taken. It is the job of the government to make the negative results a minimum.
Working in the government is a difficult position because everyone judges what is being done for the state. It is difficult to make sure that the majority of the people are being taken care of and happy, especially in trying times. It is still necessary.

Assignment #2 A Perkins

The article "Government has to make choices families, businesses don't" was written by Cindi Ross Scoppe and appeared in "The State", a South Carolina paper. It is directed towards South Carolinians, and the author is trying to give us an idea of just some of the choices that our local government is forced to make.
Citizens of South Carolina like to complain about some of the financial decisions that our state officials make but do we really understand why they make some of those decisions. The financial choices that the government has to make are very different from the choices that families and businesses make. They have to choose the response that will do the most good for the state as a whole, and not for a small handful of people the way families/businesses do. Each decision will have positive and negative effects, but all of those decisions are made with the entire state in mind.

Assignment #2 W. Bradner

The article, "Government has to make choices families, businesses don’t" was written by Cindi Ross Scoppe for TheState.com. This article was written to show what could be done and what negative effects it will have to the ever-growing economy problem. The article is directed to those that are skeptical about the government and question why they just can't fix it and get it over with. The author is trying to show how difficult it is for the government to "just fix it." There is no easy way out, and whatever the government chooses as a panacea, there will definitely be negative side effects that follow it. And even though the author states that the government does not have the right to ignore the consequences their judgements make, they are there for the common good as a whole.

If the solution they choose benefits 85% of Americans, then it is good enough in my opinion. There is no easy way out of this and there will not be an all mighty decision that just gets everyone out of financial trouble. But then again, there were always people in financial trouble even before the economy went crazy. People need to stop ignoring reality.

Assignment #2 A Liaghat

This article which appears in the State, a local South Carolina online newspaper, is an article that raises many questions but does not really endeavor to answer many of them. The article, which appeared in the opinion section is aimed more at the general public in South Carolina than to any law makers of officials. The author Cindi Ross Scoppe looks at the different ways that our state may have to use in order to try and make ends meet. She points out that while the federal government essentially has an unlimited line of credit and can run in a deficit whenever it so chooses the states and local levels do not have that same luxury. She also points out that while households and business' essentially have to only look out for themselves that the government, both local and national, have to look out for a myriad of different interests and the big picture as well.

The article essentially is an appeal to people to think about the big picture in a way, to look at the fact that if the state does not do something to try and make ends meet then we basically will not have any of the benefits that we currently enjoy. She makes arguments for multiple different ideas of ways to try and lower our current state budget, ideas that I am sure many people will not like. However, in the current situation there are no good or easy answers, and everything will require a sacrifice. So the ideas of decreasing or cutting scholarships, or freezing teachers salaries while scary, are most likely necessary in order to try and weather the current financial crisis. While she does propose several different ideas Ms Scoppe does a good job of looking at both sides of the various different possibilities. However, she does not offer any real answers, of which there probably are none, just her thoughts on the subject.

Assignment #1 A Liaghat

In this article written by Thomas Friedman the author makes several bold and controversial statements that some of his audience will like and yet others will put up a general outcry. The article, which appeared in the New York Times, states an opinion that many people in this country are feeling right now, buy many others feel that this opinion is one that can tear the country apart. While no one will argue that we are in a difficult time, with many private industries and people struggling, that is not a reason to abandon what it is that makes this country great, namely our freedoms. To state that nationalization of the banks is a good thing and that he hopes that President Obama will make that one of his first courses of action is not only inflammatory but dangerous. While the majority of the people who will read this article are of a more liberal slate, nationalization of the banks, national healthcare systems, and reforming entitlements are all things that are done in socialistic societies not democratic ones.
While I, and many others, sincerely hope that President Obama does reform some of the current policies and the “business as usual” politics that goes on in Washington, we do not want him to do so at the expense of American ideals and ideology, on what makes us great. Our government is ponderously slow moving and difficult to change, but that is exactly how our founding fathers intended for it to be. They saw what power in one or a limited number of hands did and wanted a way to try and correct that. And while our system of checks and balances is flawed, that does not mean that we need to do radical things to it just because we can. By setting out more entitlements for people that perpetuates the current mold of people not working for their own betterment, why should they when the government will just do it for them. Times of strife and struggle are what make us who we are, as individuals and as a society, and it is important for everybody, and especially our president to remember that fact.

This article, while very well written, and appearing to be addressing itself to the moderates or those to the right of the aisle, actually does nothing more than scare those of us who do consider ourselves “conservative” because it is purporting to do just those things that we fear being done. We cannot hope to better ourselves with one hand out all the time. And despite the pretty idea, there is no such thing as completely equal. There will always be people smarter, funnier, prettier, or with more money than someone else. But this diversity is what makes man so interesting and America so great. You can become whatever you want here if you work hard, we have seen it time and again, and our current president is a shining example of this. The only way to make everything and everybody equal is to lower the majority down to the lowest minority and then everyone suffers equally and then there is nothing to strive for.

Assignment #2 K Tough

After reading Cindi Scoppe’s article posted on The State.com I wanted to answer all of her questions, but realized that I was in the same situation as our state legislators. I had no answers, no solutions to our state economic crisis. As a college student I hope there are no cuts in scholarships, but I realize there will be no jobs for us when we graduate if the number of highly successful and experienced workers seeking employment continues to rise with layoffs. Since my sister is entering the teaching profession I was disappointed to hear of state teacher salary freezes, but on the other hand it is a blessing to have steady employment.
I agree with Scoppe on the concept that more furloughs and fewer layoffs will at least leave workers with a job to return to when the economy improves. Along with Scoppe, and every American, I must question the whole bonus process of every organization and business. These funds are to stimulate the economy, yet those receiving the largest financial bonus appear to be those who invest in their own wealth not spending to stimulate the economy. All of these questions brought to my mind, and written in Scoppe’s post are more hypothetical than direct; but they are directed at all citizens of South Carolina. She is not speaking just to the legislators or residents of our state capital, but she is crying out for all of us to understand the process of our state budget. I have read “Government has to make choices families, businesses don’t” over and over and I am still unclear if Scoppe is telling us, the people of SC, that she feels our legislative body does or does not possess common sense in dealing with our economic crisis. Scoppe has let us know that it is not a time to compare our basic household budget with that of the state, but more than that she has removed the condescending analogies from the topic of budget and requested that we all look at the whole picture and do our part to help.
Cindi Scoppe is an editor at The State; and therefore, is stating her personal opinion with approval from her publisher; so there are a greater number of questions and answers not mentioned in this article that affect SC’s economic status. The arguments, over which economic measures will best stimulate our economy, while keeping us out of debt, will continue since each district represented by a legislator has a unique perspective of spending and budgeting.

Assignment #2 Roxanne Ayers

“Government has to make choices families, businesses don’t”

This article was written by Cindi Ross Scoppe, an associate editor for The State, a Columbia South Carolina newspaper. The article is addressing an audience that will tend to agree with the authors points. It was written to statement that families & businesses react differently during a financial crisis than the government does. She makes the point that when a family is struggling to make ends meet, they decrease spending; the government does not. The federal government has limitless amounts of money at their disposal, even if that means gigantic deficits. A family or a business can only borrow so much, but only has the burden of their well-being to look after.

If I had to summarize her article, I would say that if the government had to deal with their budget the same as any of us in the private sector, they would be bankrupt and living on the street. I think she believes along the same lines as most of us do; we need the governments programs and spending. This process ‘New Deal’ was put into place during the great depression and should have been a temporary fix, however it is so enmeshed into our country that I’m not sure it can ever be untangled. I wonder at what point it can be assumed that this way of running the country is broken and try something else? I do agree with her comment, “there are no easy answers here.”