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.”

Assignment # 2 M E Mockridge

In Columbia S.C.'s newspaper "The State", Associate Editor Cindy Ross Scoppe adresses the issue of state spending in a time of financial crisis. The state of South Carolina, unlike the federal government, must operate within a balanced budget- difficult in good times, almost impossible in bad. Scoppe contends that comparing the running of our state to running our business or a family is imbalanced since government bears a burden that the private sector doesn't- the welfare of its people.
I am not familiar with the ideology of Ms. Scoppe or The State, but I do believe that she leans in the direction of Big Government. Her article, though, is basically fair and looks at all side of this crisis we're in. There are no easy answers in this dilemma.
I contend that government SHOULD be run like a business. Choices are tough to make, but can be learned from. There is reward in success and wisdom in failure. (Ask any child who has burnt their hand on a hot stove- they never do it again!)
Businesses should never be considered "too big to fail" and either should government programs(e.g.-sales tax versus property tax to fund education). I would hate to see anyone lose their job or legitimate benefits from a government program, but something has to give if we are to weather this monetary monsoon our state and country is caught up in.
If the purpose of governmnet is , as Ms, Scoppe states,to look out for society, then we all must prepare to live with some hard choices for the common good.

Assignment #2 T Gombar

Cindi Ross Scoppe wrote this article for the State.com. I believe this article was written to let people know just how bad things are, and to send a message to the people who make remarks such as well the government should just do this… but don’t think about all the different affects. She states very different scenarios each having a negative and a positive. The question is which negative is worse? Which negative will result in less people being laid off, or less people being foreclosed on?

I think she is trying to let people know that the government’s decisions are very different from day to day family decisions of just staying in for dinner because it’s cheaper than going out. Those decisions do not affect your neighbors or family members. However, a budget cut can affect several people, and not make everyone happy. I think the basic argument in this column is just that these problems are not just a simple fix, and regardless of the choices the government makes not everyone will benefit.

Tara Gombar

Assignment #2 S Alt

The article "Government has to make choice families, businesses don't" appeared in The State. It was written to address the people of South Carolina worried about the state's financial problems. The author argues exactly what's written in the title: Government makes choices that a family does not have to. And while government is more or less a business, it's not just carrying the livelihood of its employees on its shoulders, it has an entire state resting in its hands. Businesses don't have to worry about keeping people who are not employed in their homes, because they can't afford to care about everyone. But government exists to aid all under its jurisdiction, and even some who are not. Nothing good can come from a government that doesn't look out for all of its people, and if you need proof, look at the state of the nation. Our economy is failing, people are losing their jobs and homes, and this all comes from the ridiculous right wing belief of looking out only for the people with money that dominated multiple presidencies. After all, we all know that not being able to pay off all your bills means that you're simply too lazy and a substandard citizen who deserves no sympathy. But, I digress.

While simplifying government to the individual or business level in an argument may be fine to prove a point, the fact remains that families and businesses do not have the lives of an entire state hanging in the balance. But one must remember that in reality it's much more complicated than that.

Assignment #2 K McWhirter

I think the writer is forcefully aware that it will be a struggle to address the nation's budget issue. She also appears to hold the government accountable for its actions.

I think she raises an interesting question here: Does the benefit to the economy of raising taxes outweigh the drawback of less money for businesses, which could be forced to shut down, or individuals, who might be unable to pay the mortgage or meet basic needs? Or the more realistic flip side: Will the benefit of cutting taxes (putting more money into the hands of individuals, or businesses, or certain individuals, or certain businesses) outweigh the drawback of reducing government spending, and therefore putting more people out of work or cutting their pay or reducing government purchases of goods and services from the private sector? - My friends and I were recently discussing this very subject. The writer is attempting to get her readers to think logically and really understand the futility of the situation at hand.

Assignment #1 C Archie

As this is the first blog I have ever written, why not start out with huge current events? The article "Radical in the White House", doesn't fully describe the situation we face. I believe our nation as a whole needs to be a bit more radical to take on the challenges we face in these economic times. This is not just an American recession, this is a world-wide problem. All nations need to be looking to new alternatives and ways of viewing our financial crises. I am under the belief that if President Obama can keep this from getting any worse during his term in office, he will have done a tremendous job. But to make huge promises and take the money of our future generations is only going to come back to hurt us in the future.
When I hear and read about his economic plan, I see the welfare state continuing to grow in this nation. This means that instead of borrowing money from other countries now to fix our own problems, we have delayed the inevitable. We will come back at some point in our future to a time of borrowing from rising powers in the world like China, and it will make us a lesser nation all because we are trying to solve this problem with fake money. Let's save ourselves but not by lowering our worth.
If you want something radical...let the fall out happen. Sure there will be many problems but it's better to get them over with than to delay them for our children's children. If we are to survive as a nation, WE need to face our problems and not put them on our children that will come to face even more impossible odds down the road.

Assignment #1 acampbell

This article, “Radical in the White House”, was written by Thomas L. Friedman on January 21, 2009. He is an award-winning American journalist, columnist, author, and he is an op-ed contributor to The New York Times. His columns appear twice weekly and cause him to be viewed as a very outspoken and political critic. He has won the prestigious Pulitzer Prize three times. Two of these times wre for International Reporting in 1983 and 1988 and once for Commentary in 2002. Friedman is known for supporting a compromise resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, modernization of the Arab world, environmentalism and globalization. Although an early ardent supporter of the invasion of Iraq, he later became an outspoken critic of the war and the Bush administration.

This article was written by Friedman concerning the inauguration of our new President Barrack Obama. It was mostly addressed to Americans that supported Barrack and were proud of the change. Friedman comes off at first as being proud that the citizens of the United States have finally made a huge change by electing the first African American as president. He then follows up throughout the article saying that although we have made one change, does not mean we need to not make anymore. Thomas Friedman makes this more than clear when he says, “So my most fervent hope about President Obama is that he will be as radical as this moment — that he will put everything on the table.”

In a way I also think it was in a way addressed to Barrack Obama as well because Friedman was often talking about Obama’s gift he had of oratory and how a great politician he is. He mentioned several times he wanted Barrack Obama to make a lot of changes in America. Although it was not a direct comparision, I felt as if he was comparing Obama to some of the many great men in American History today such as Franklin Roosevelt. This to me said that Friedman believed Obama was capable of making changes, just like a lot of presidents in past history, but I depended on if Obama had the will power to do it.

Assignment #1 - L. Bodie

This article, "Radical in the White House", was written by Thomas L. Friedman. Friedman has been awarded multiple Pulitzer Prizes for his work with the New York Times, and was then elected to the Pulitzer Prize board. This article appeared in the New York Times on January 21, 2009, in response the the inauguration of our President, Barack Obama.

I believe that this article was written to provide a unification for those Americans on each side of the political fence. Friedman discusses the big tasks that Obama must tackle, and expresses his hope that he will not fall short of his promises. This allows those that have always been Obama's supporters to rally together on the side of the writer, and also allows those with doubts to step back and say, "You know, I hope that he fulfills his promises too...." Regardless of whether or not they believed he was the man for the job in the first place, the hopeful tone of Friedman's article can bring everyone together as we look forward. The basic argument of the article is that Obama needs to stay true to his claims of being for change. He cannot step back and make baby steps when he has promised leaps, and the leaps he makes must be followed through from beginning to end.

Assignment # 1. J Catoe

This article was written on 01/21/2009 by Thomas L. Friedman of the New York Times.
Thomas Friedman is a New York Times " Foreign affairs" columnist and is a three time pulitzer prize winner.He has reported on the Middle East conflict, the end of the cold war, U.S. domestic politics and foreign policy, international economics, and the worldwide impact of terrorists.

This article appeared in the NY Times Opinion column. It was directed at an audience that had just witnessed the swearing-in of a new president, an audience that may be for or against the policies of the new president. I couldn't determine whether the writer was Liberal or Conservative, only that he was glad of the change in guard.
This article was written to celebrate the accomplishment of electing a President, who is of mixed race, and the change he hopes to bring to the Country. Mr Friedman's main argument is to warn us not to just accept the election as enough change, but to make sure there is follow through on the promise of change. He harkens back to Americas early days and shows that during periods of great hardship, true leaders arise to redefine what it means to be an American citizen.
Although he gives examples of change by former leaders and the accomplishments they've made he warns us at the end of the article.
He ends by stating that although we have elected a radically new President, this does not guarantee an automatic radical change from anything we've experienced before.

Assignment #1 T Gombar

Thomas L. Friedman a Pulitzer Prize winner wrote this article for the New York Times. I believe this article was written not to express democratic views but to try show that right now it doesn’t matter if you are a republican or a democrat. The message I took from the article is that America needs to be united right now in this time of change. Many people are very supportive of President Obama and many people couldn’t be less supportive. The fact is that America is in a downward spiral, and is in need of fixing. We as Americans need to support our President. I believe that this article is directed to two different groups I already mentioned. The first group is the crazed Obama supporters; their message is that this great change is not going to happen overnight, which I think that’s the impression they are under. The second group is the people that are one hundred percent against Obama; their message is to try and change your view and give him a chance. He has an opportunity to do some great things.

I believe the overall argument is that if ever there was a time for America to unite it is now, and let’s get out of this mess. We need to take this opportunity to have a fresh start, and make the most of a bad situation. It’s going to be a long ride turning the economy around but with everyone’s support it could go a little smoother.

Tara Gombar

Assignment #1- A Perkins

"Radical in the Whitehouse", an article that appeared in the New York Times on January 21, 2009, was written by Thomas L. Friedman. Friedman has been the paper's foreign affairs columnist since 1995. In his article, published the day after President Obama was inaugurated, Friedman was trying to reach the audience of Obama supporters, and at the same time he was trying to reach those that voted against him.
Friedman's article congratulated Americans for turning a corner in history by electing our first African-American President. His basic argument is that although we have turned this very significant corner in history, that we still have a long road ahead of us and many more corners to turn. There are multiple problems in our country today, and we may not know what's around those corners, but if Obama stands by his word and our country, and if the citizens of this country stand behind him and lift him up, we can face these problems with our minds and hands ready for action. It is time for a change; a radical change!

Assignment 1 - Roxanne Ayers

Thomas L. Friedman, a three time pulitzer prize winning author with liberal political views wrote this article " A Radical in the White House". Mr Friedman seems to be trying to convince the non-Obama supporters to rally behind the new president because radical is what we need in our country.

There are many in our country that believes President Obama can save this country. I don't believe that one man can save us all, in fact I believe you should save yourself. Sometimes if you look and listen closely you can almost hear and see an almost Jesus worship of our President Obama - Now thats is what I call radical and a bit scary too! There have been other countries that have turned to a radical in their darkest hour and have barely lived to regret it, anyone remember Germany post WWI? Do not think for a moment that I am comparing the two men - I'm not, rather I want to stress individual responsibility and what can happen.

Americans must pull themselves out of their own hole as best as they can, depending on the government to do it is foolish - help may not arrive in time. Even with my conservative views, Mr. Friedman's article had me silently hoping he's right, but I do it with my fingers crossed and my own social and economic plan to help me and my family.

Assignment #1 - C Strickland

The author, Thomas L. Friedman, is an accomplished writer with an extensive background in foreign affairs. This article, however, deals with the current state of the United States with the election of, in his own words, a "Black Man". Which he uses to show that the US has moved past the racial identification and is focused more on the important characteristics of a president. Such as, the ability to lead the country out of its present economical state and into a new, re energized economical standpoint. He points out that we (the American people) need a "radical" in the White House so that change can happen. I do agree that change needs to happen, and that it will require a different type of politician to lead the way. The situation that currently faces the US, is one that has the potential to be an obstacle or an opportunity. Friedman uses the phrase, "swing for the fences", which I think is a great way to look at this as an opportunity, so long as the details aren't overlooked. A batter can swing for the fences, but if he is not in the batters box, then he will surely strike out. In other words, having a plan to overcome this is great, but let us not forget the small details that will make or break the economical structure. I feel that just throwing money at the failing business will only delay the collapse, mainly because the root problem will not be corrected with large amounts of money.

The author, I believe, is trying to point out that our new president seems to have the ability, and desire, to change our current situation, and will not just try to coast through it. Friedman has projected his optimism onto a general audience through the New York Times. But, ironically, I have to wonder how much of this present predicament has been worsened by the constant negativity from the press in order to increase their own income.