Growing Need of Food Stamps

The recession is hurting many families in the United States. More than 36 million people currently use food stamps and the number keeps on rising every month. The sight of people using food stamps is now just as common as seeing people buying groceries with their own money.

About 2/3 of the people that qualify for food stamps, receive food stamps. 20,000 new people receive foods stamps every day. In 239 counties food stamps feed 1/4 of the population and in 750 counties, food stamps feed 1 in 3 blacks. It is reported that by the age of 20, 90% of all black children will at some point use food stamps. While food stamps were originally more common in poor communities below the poverty line, more an more food stamps are being used by families living in the suburbs. Many rich counties have seen a spike in the amount of people applying for food stamps. Food stamps originally symbolized laziness, but now as more and more people lose jobs, and less jobs are available, support for food stamps continues to rise.

I think that even though it is important to help people that can't afford food, more importance should be placed on trying to get jobs. In many counties, factories and stores closing has caused people to get laid off. After people get laid off, they apply for food stamps. If new jobs can be created, people will have a steady income coming in which will stop them from getting food stamps. The number of people applying for food stamps is increasing way too quickly. With the recession this is to be expected, but actions must be taken to slow-down this rise.

What Voters Want?

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has commented that voters want politicians to reach across the aisle, to participate in bipartisan efforts. This attitude of participation and reform, however, has gotten him in trouble with his constituents in his home state. Charlston County has recently censured, or officially reprimanded, the moderate Senator, with a number of grievances included voting to confirm Justice Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, and working with Senator John Kerry on climate change legislation, voting to support the Wall Street bailout, and "tarnishing the ideals of freedom."
Senator Graham avoided an additional censure in Berkeley County by agreeing to meet with party leaders, and neighboring York County has made its disapproval of Graham's politics clear.
Opposingly, South Carolina's other Senator, fellow Republican Jim DeMint practices different politics. Known in the Republican party as a "Defender of Liberty", DeMint is far less moderate and believes that Republicans need to stay true to conservative ideals instead of compromising with the Democrats across the aisle.
Many followers of politics in the area say that in reality, Graham and DeMint's voting records are about eighty percent identical. So why the criticism for Graham while DeMint is so well supported?
Former Republican state lawmaker John Graham Altman says that it is the polarized political climate under the new Democrat President Barack Obama, as well as the pressure of the healthcare debate that has South Carolina conservatives all riled up.
On the other hand, as long as these ultra-conservatives have control over the local Republican parties, there is no solid way to tell whether the voters (who in the past have been on the whole moderate Republicans) are really all that upset. Professor of political science at Winthrop University Scott Huffmon says that the image of Lindsey Graham "on the ropes" is not entirely accurate, and Senator DeMint has also said that the differences between himself and Senator Graham have been largely exaggerated.
With such a mix of information, it is hard to determine whether Graham has really lost popularity with his constituents, or whether hard-core conservatives are making mole hills into mountains.

www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/us/politics/29senators.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper
South Carlina Rift Highlights Debate Over G.O.P.
by Shaila Dewan

Pakistani Leader Leaves Office After Intense Pressure

The leader of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari late friday night on news release. Zardari held the top civilian position in the organization known as the National Command Authority which controls every aspect of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Some speculate that President Zardari left because of Obama's strategy for that region. He is also charged with corruption and other criminal charges. Analysts say that this move does not throw off the stability of the Pakistan as long as President Obama continues to enforce his changes. President Zardari did not get a long with the Pakistani military and the Pakistan People's Party so many were thrilled to see him leave office. The move for him to leave office has helped out Pakistan, many say. Now the United States wants to take control of that powers that he has and control Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Many have question the power of the Pakistani government and questions its ability to handle these situations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/world/asia/29pstan.html?_r=1&hp

The ole miss

It was a beautiful day for football on the 21st of november 2009. Ole Miss vs. LSU, two colleges fighting it out. Then the KKK showed up to protest.

Such a random event in what will now be some sort of history. I really don't understand what they were thinking but alas, the 1st amendment continues to assualt us. If they wanted to protest the changing of the song, they could have done it without using a full fledge KKK representation. Times have changed and it's gotten to the point where even children know it's not alright. They changed the words of the song at the end only and it was because it said "the south shall rise again" fro the same reasons the elementry school down the road changed their mascot from a native american to a dragon. political correctness. It's not to say what is or what is not right to make another person's opinion wrong, but it is assured that we are not going to have a southern uprising on our hands anytime soon. So it's only accurate to make the song relevant again by correcting it much like the constitution.

The age of prejudice is over. It's a childish fear of the unknown and judging a book by it's cover. We are smarter now, until other sentient beings come down from outerspace according to District 9. The uniforms still entitle hatred from americans, but it happens to be more on the outside than on the inside.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezkvRywf4vw

Enthusiasm for Palin, Echoes of 2008 Divide

Conservatives joined in great numbers this week to not only meet, but promote Sarah Palin. She has been pioneering a tour to advertise her new book, "Going Rogue," which has been a major subject of discussion in politics lately. Many conservatives came to purchase her book. However, all conservatives came to bind their minds together and argue in favor of conservative principles.
The New York Times interviewed random groups of people at Palin's appearance to discover their intentions for traveling to this event and their views on Obama's current performance. The consensus that plagued the crowd was that Palin is a "great conservative hope" and a "role model." Generally, they are confident that she is the solution to Obama's "tragic" performance. Palin did not choose to visit the typical popular cities that other politicians may have normally traveled to had they been launching their own tour. Rather, she targeted smaller towns, where she demonstrated the most success with McCain during their campaign last year.
Opinions about Obama grew strong amongst Palin's supporters. They believe that after a year of sitting in office, he still has not truly governed. Rather, he has been campaigning and illustrating his hope for what can happen, but not actually doing anything except spending money. They also were concerned about his policy in Afghanistan. Many agreed that he still has not made a sufficient decision about what to do there and he must either take action or get the troops out immediately. Some hard-core conspiracy theorists went as far as claiming that Obama is a Communist that wishes for everyone to attend re-education camps. Whatever the case was, everyone was angered by Obama's downfalls, such as the hightening budget deficits and proper health care reform that does not seem to exist. Attacks against Obama seemed especially prominent because Palin stopped in cities that are mostly unemployed. They all expressed hope for Palin to be our next president. They were actually not sure exactly what she would do to "fix" our country, but they are confident in her since she knows how to "run a family and a state."
I agree with how conservatives have reacted to Obama's performance and why they are looking for change. When Obama campaigned last year, I supported him and maintained great hopes that he would be the greatest solution to our country's major issues. I was confident that the economy would be restored, the war would either be dealt with better or settled, health care reform would be in effect rapidly, etc. Unfortunately, Obama has not proved to me that he deserves the presidential position yet--and it has been a year. I hoped that everything he stated in his speeches would be true. However, I know that, at least for now, Obama's words were not true. He pushed our hopes up for very little positive change. Where is the health care reform? What is happening with the war? When will our economy return to a better condition? I have many questions that have been left unanswered. I appreciate his positive attitude and his undying hope. However, how can he have so much hope left when little has been done? Hopefully, Obama will use his next few years in office wisely and actually demonstrate reform rather than speak of it. Until then, I will agree with the conservatives' views that we need change as soon as possible.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/us/politics/22palin.html?pagewanted=print

The Senate Health Reform Bill

For many months now we have been hearing news about how our government has been taking steps to try and reform health care. It cannot be denied that the process has been slow and tedious, but finally there has been a progressive step in the right direction. The two major versions of the health care bill that were previously being debated have finally been merged, surprisingly, into a somewhat better overall bill.
The Bill, if passed, would cost in excess of $848 billion over the next decade. The Bill would cover 31 million Americans that would have previously been uninsured. Furthermore, it would reduce the Nation's deficit by $130 billion in the first decade alone. In the decade, after that it would reduce the deficit by over half a trillion dollars. The Bill will also make health care more affordable for the middle class and it would force companies to shy away from expensive health care. Unlike the old Bill. the new Bill will include health care plans that cover abortions at the cost of the individual. However, the Bill's benefits would cause a slight increase in the amount that lower income people would have to contribute.
After we have waited so long for the Senate to decide on a single Bill, we must now wait to see if the Bill will make it up for debate. In order for the Bill to be debated, the senate will have to unite all the democrats, including the conservative democrats, in order to overcome the Republican filibuster. After waiting for so long our government owes it to us to allow this bill to be debated.



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/opinion/21sat2.html?scp=5&sq=november+21+2009&st=nyt

Panel Votes to Broaden Oversight of the Fed

The United States is currently in a recession. The government has come up with many "remedies" to try to end this recession. One of these "remedies" includes bailing out large companies, such as GMC. However, this company has faced such a large financial deficit that one bail out has not cut it for them. This problem is one of the many problems of the Federal Reserve that has caused anger in the House . Yesterday a House panel voted that Congress oversee the central bank's actions.
The House Financial Services Committee has recently approved a measure proposed by Ron Paul of Texas which, allows Congress to audit essentialy everything the Federal Reserve does. However, this measure is feared by many in the Federal reserve because it will cause the Federal Reserve to be a lot more pressured by not only politicians, but the public. Also, the Federal Reserve believes that, "it would undermine the central bank’s political independence and gravely threaten its credibility as a bulwark against inflation."
This measure proposed entails that the Government Accountability Office perform all these audits on the most controversial things such as the bail outs. Also, the Goverment Accountability Office would oversee the interest rates set by the central bank. With this measure the goal of the central bank to decrease interest rates would be disturbed because now Congress would also have to agree on a way to accomplish the goal of decreasing interest rates.
This proposed measure seems extremelly efficient during these difficult times. The Federal Reserve has made many mistakes in bailing out these companies, in that, these companies still have not learned their lessons. Now with Congress being able to oversee the actions of the Federal Reserve, Congress can now disagree with the actions taken by the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve will potentially not make these mistakes anymore. Also, the public can also pressure the Federal Reserve to act in accordance with the publics opinion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/business/20regulate.html?scp=27&sq=the%20times%20in%20print%20for%20November%2020,%202009&st=cse

Moderate Dems Pivotal in Saturday Health Care Vote

The Health Care bill is still currently being disputed in the Senate as a few Senators are still "unsure" of whether they are for or against it. Tomorrow three moderate Democratic Senators will provide their votes and possibly sway the legislation to a close finish. These three Senators, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, and Blanch Lincoln of Arkansas, are feeling the intense pressure of their local voters in their state as well as the media in the Capitol. Each Senator has been hinting at what their decision will be but not saying it outright. Republicans are jumping on every opportunity to making these Democratic Senators look bad and gain the upper hand for future elections. Also, the pressure is even more intense since they are strongly encouraging the Senators to be opposed to it. Hmm, anyone game for a little Hardball?

A major deciding factor for this bill especially for the Louisiana Senator is the Section 2006. It states that the state of Louisiana will receive $100 million or more in federal funds to cover costs for Medicaid. This goes to the whole idea of the "politics is local"; if she votes against the bill in favor of the Republican view, she will deny her state all of the funds and Louisianans might feel neglected for the lack of support. If she votes for it, the Democrats and her state will be satisfied but the Republicans won't. It's a sacrifice that is going to be made by every Senator. Most likely she will vote for the bill, considering the praise she will receive from her state and the higher chance of being reelected even though she will be criticized by the Republicans. As they say, something has to give. Not everyone is going to be satisfied by whatever the end result happens to be.

Although these Senators are being influenced by those who oppose the health care bill, it seems to me that they're going to listen to their fellow Democrats and vote for passage.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091121/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul

Forget about Palin's book, listen to this!

So when I started to read CNN's article, "Obama Wont Read Palin's Book", I thought two things, 'Sure does look like some crap's gonna hit the fan', and 'How is this relevent to American politics?' Well, the discoveries I made reading this article surprised me.
First of all, there wasn't much drama behind this decision at all. In fact, when the president was asked about Sarah Palin's memoir he cordially responded, "I probably won't, but I don't get a chance to read things other than briefing books very often these days anyway." Alright, doesn't sound like a big deal to me.
However, what he said after that was quite shocking:"I said to myself very early on, even when I started running for office, I don't want to be making decisions based on getting reelected, because I think the challenges that America faces right now are so significant...Obviously, if I make those decisions and I think that I'm moving the country on the right direction economically, in terms of our security interests, our foreign policy, I'd like to think that those policies are continued because they're not going to bear fruit just in four years"
What a bold statement. The president of the United States basically implied that he wasn't looking to get re-elected. The last president to state that intention was Lyndon B Johnson prior to the 1968 election. And this relates to the debate we had earlier today about whether campaigning was good for the American government. One of the biggest arguments for the NO side was that politicians were so worried about getting re-elected, that they made decisions based on what the people in their regions wanted rather than what they knew was beneficial to those people. A huge amount of these politicians' efforts are made towards securing their seat in office instead of securing the right of due process for the people. Obama's plan almost works in reverse. Instead of focusing on campaigning, he's focusing on developing his ideas to make our country and its government better. Maybe Obama shares views with Anthony King, whose article, "Running Shared", reflects many of the ideas of the NO side of the debate.
But do I agree with Obama's idea? I have to say, I'm not sure.One of the best things about America is having the chance to have your voice heard. If a politician is ignorant to your stated needs, how can he give them to you? However, many people are just plain ignorant themselves, and don't understand the full consequences of their decisions. Politicians aren't just chosen for the representation they will provide, but for the decisions they will make. This stands even more true for the president, who isn't representing a specific region of the country and is therefore needed solely because of his or her ability to lead this country to success.
I guess only time will tell where these decisions lead us.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Obama Addresses the 'Axis of Evil'

The development of a nuclear arsenal by North Korea, and research on nuclear technologies by Iran has lead President Obama to confront these two countries. Together President Obama and President Lee Myung-bak have addressed Iran due to their rejection of an offer from the west to take Iran's enriched uranium stockpile and make fuel rods in order to buy more time for diplomatic negotiations to prevent sanctions on the country. The two also talked about an issue which must be dealt with, which is the cycle North Korea, where it acts provocatively, then talks, leaves talks, and seeks further concessions. President Lee has was elected on the concept of a tougher treatment of North Korea, but he has also been criticized for his support of sending aid to help the American led force in Afghanistan. The article raises an important question. Does American has the obligation as well as the right to police the rest of the world? I believe that as the sole super power in the world, our country has LIMITED obligation to take action on countries in which the people are suppressed, and in which the government has shown aggression by developing technologies which would put other countries in danger. Although, our country has no right to interfere with the general views and actions of the majority of a nation, if there is no evidence it is threatening other countries.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/world/asia/19prexy.html?ref=politics

Under Friendly Veneer, China Pushes Back on Obama

Foreign relations have always served as a way of allowing the President to show what kind of person they really are. When President Clinton was in office, he demanded the respect of his fellow leaders when discussing important issues. Even President George W. Bush was able to receive rigorous endorsements for his political platform and what had been considered a priority. President Obama has stepped onto the world stage, into the limelight, and has been metaphorically booed right off by China.

Although China has always been a tough critic, the abrasive attitude of Hu Jintao in topics ranging from Iranian nuclear regime to currency has American conservatives believing President Obama has softened the American position that we had once held in strength. However, by staying mute and allowing China to look to our example instead of trying to flaunt it, President Obama is using a technique that has drawn success whereas a lecturing approach would not and has not obtained. He is attempting to win over the minds of the Chinese; by doing this we will be able to move forward in many areas that are currently at a stand still. Some of these areas include human rights which Mr. Hu has acknowledged stating China and the United States have differences of opinions about, economic issues, Iran, and climate issues.

The Obama administration is now facing some hard critiquing because of its placement in time. Our current economic and social situation are making it hard to obtain respect globally. As a country, we must pull ourselves back together before we can address what we consider "problems" in places such as China. America is trying to play the role of the world's mediator, and this address of China and its policies reflects that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/world/asia/18prexy.html?hp

A Change in Ideology

As of Monday, new guidelines have been established for medical screening regarding Breast Cancer. A decrease in medical attentiveness has been set by the panel that establishes these guidelines, an odd change in pace considering. Due to these suggestions, regular Breast Cancer screening will be started at age 50 and continued done every two years instead of the previous age 40 and yearly examination. As well, it tells doctors to stop teaching woman to stop performing self-examinations. This radical leap has been the biggest leap since the 2002 announcement by Tommy G. Thompson for the, now changed, guidelines for mammograms.
Health care has been thought to be a governmental crutch for the old, injured, poor, etc. but that the ultimate responsibility relies in the individual. This panel's decision might be the beginning of an "Entitlement Revolution." A change of governmental handling of Health care such as: Increasing of age required for Social Security, or people risking their Social Security on the stock market. This change in ideology might represent the future health care of the American Health Care system.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/health/17cancer.html?_r=1&hp

President on the ropes

President Obama has taken his first trip to China to speak with many political figures, such as President Hu Jintao and also many young citizens of China from univerities around the country. The President hopes to up hold good ties with China as a allied nation in the fight against the worlds dropping economy, global warming, and the spread of terrorism. However past events on both sides are making many other political critics skeptical. China's biggest concern is with Washington's government spending, and how the U.S. will pay back China in the future. Also with China's ugent moves to contain North Korea's nuclear progressions which have helped ease many minds, China seems wary of getting involved in containing Irans urainium enrichment. On the U.S. perspective many are concerned with the trade problems that have occured with China, and the ever persitent want for greater enforcement of human rights in China. However the President is trying to focus on the good each country has with one another, even with politcal figures in America sketical of the Presidents methods, largely surround the conflict of how to bring up human rights and religious tolerance. The President has promised to bring these issues up privately with Chinese leaders. President Obama will also hold "town hall" styled meetings with many scholars in hopes to share U.S. views with China's youth. However concern for the broadcasts of these talks in a communist nation, which may possibly pick and choose what should be shown, are out there, but the U.S. will be posting cover of the talks online.
In the end, i believe the President is doing all he can, but at the same time remembering that he is in another country and does not wish to offend his hosts, just as anyone should. However the President will do his job as the President of the United States, nothing will stop that. President Obama, i believe is not going "soft" on anyone, however he does not want to lose a currently rising country as a potentional allie in the future. Now is the time to draw nations together, when we need it the most.
link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091115/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama;_ylt=AmuCO5KtDVX7kmjNTGRhIYys0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTJqbm5jcW5hBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMTE1L29iYW1hBGNwb3MDMQRwb3MDMwRwdANob21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDZnVsbG5ic3BzdG9y
sorce: Yahoo News

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/13/mohammed.critics/index.html

"Politicians Rip Decision On Terrorism Trials"

Attorney General, Eric Holder, decided Friday to try five suspected 9/11 terrorists in civilian court. Many members of congress opposed this type of trial. Many accused Holder of risking American security by treating the suspects as "common criminals." This type of treatment would entitle the suspect to greater constitutional liberties than they would if the case was tried as a military trial. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind behind the 9/11 attack who confessed, as well as five Guantanamo Bay detainees with supposed ties to the attacks will be tried in civilian court in New York. Some argue that this type of trial is too lenient on the alleged terrorists. "These terrorists planned and executed the mass murder of thousands of innocent Americans. Treating them like common criminals is unconscionable." This statement by Texas GOP Sen. John Cornyn supports the opposing side of the argument: These suspects did something horrible and do not deserve to be treated as common criminals. John Cornyn also stated that Eric Holder only put this decision into action, and endangered the security of Americans to fulfill a campaign promise. Democratic opposition also came along with Holder's proposition; Moderate Virginia Sen. Jim Webb stated he is "very concerned about the wisdom" of holding civilian trials instead of military ones. He also opposed Holder's proposal by saying the trial of these suspected terrorists in civilian court will be disruptive, costly, and potentially counterproductive. Some also argue that the families of the 9/11 victims deserve the opportunity to see justice served against those who caused them grief. Clearly, there is a wide range of beliefs on this subject. However, opposition or support for this decision is not divided by Democratic beliefs or Republican views. It is divided by a sense of morality. This issue has been the cause of much controversy within congress.

Overhaulin'?

Obama's plan to do an "immigration overhaul" by the beginning months of the 2010 is claimed to still be on the agenda, despite the other important issues he has to face such as the healthcare bill, and alternative energy sources. Ms. Napolitano, the Homeland Security Secrety, says that it will definitely be an issue brought up and addressed by 2010 despite the other pressing issues the nation needs to face; despite this people are still skeptical as to whether president Obama will keep to his agenda and really address immigration by 2010. When and if Obama adresses the immigration issue it is going to include "enacting tougher enforcement laws against illegal immigrants and the people who hire them, and streamlining the system for legal immigration," as Napolitano said, also calling it the "three-legged stool" of immigration.
When action is taken the Obama administration is planning on also giving 12 million illegal immigrants legal status. When this happens I wonder what is going to happen to things like the healthcare coverage. The figures now are to give healthcare to everyone, but were these 12million extra individuals added into this figure? Will we really be able to cover all of them without sending us into a deficit? Along with this, how are they planning to enforce all of these new changes they plan to make? Wanting to tax, fine, register, and do background checks on all illegal immigrants is a hefty job to take on, will that ever be fully accomplished?

Source

Rep. Kennedy and Bishop in Bitter Rift on Abortion

Representative Patrick J. Kennedy of Rhode Island was to meet Thursday with Thomas J. Tobin, the Roman Catholic bishop of Providence, and perhaps start healing a bitter rifft over whether health care legislation now before Congress should restrict abortion coverage.

The United States Comference of Catholic Bishops has lobbied forcefully against including federal financing for abortion in the health care legislation, and Bishop Tobin, who has led the Catholic Church in Rhode Island since 2005, has been a vocal participant.

His conflict with Mr. Kennedy - an unusuallu personal example of the pressure Catholic bishops are bringing to bear on the health care debate - started last month, when Mr. Kennedy, a Democrat, in his eigth term, questioned why the church had vowed to fight any health care bill that did not explicitly ban the use of public money for abrotions.

I feel that this subject is quite the touchy one. Indeed abortion is a choice, and no one is forced to have one or not, but I am not quite sure where government should stand on funding for this one. Additionally, it is quite common, and many lower class citizens are bound to receive them; however, I believe this topic is extremely controversial, and may not be solved for quite some time. Essentially, if the health care legislation decides to incorporate abortion funding within the new plan, I believe it will benefit many; yet, will cause quite a bit of uproar. Catholic or not, it can only help, not hurt the American people.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/kennedy/politics

Bill Clinton Urges Fast Action by Senate Democrats

Today Bill Clinton joined Senate Democrats for there weekly luncheon on Tuesday. He urged them to band together and quickly pass health care legislation. His main focus was urging the law makers to get the bill adopted. Clinton stated that,
" But the main thing, since we’re focused on the economy, is that we are spending 16.5 percent of our income on health care. The next most expensive country is Switzerland at 11.5. The next most expensive is Canada at 10.5. All of our competitors are between 9 and 10 percent. That means every year, it’s like we write a check to all of our economic competitors for $800 or $900 million. And they cover everybody — we only cover 84 percent, and we don’t get better outcomes. We get worse outcomes. "
I find it funny how Clinton makes it such a big deal that we spend to much on health care when the bill that was just passed calls for $1.1 trillion dollars over the next ten years. Yes health reform is needed but it such just be based on health reform not the economy. I'm not saying we have to spend multi billions of dollars but limiting the health care due to the economy is not right. Clearly, Clinton just wanted to make an appearance. Obviously he did a lot during his presidency for health care... He hasn't had his publicity in a while.

Sweepin Health Care Plan Passes House

President Obama was finally able to pass a version of the healthcare bill though the senate with a vote of 220-215. This proposed bill would cost $1.1 trillion dollars and be paid for by taxpayer’s money. Part of the bill will require health insurance companies from not denying someone service because of pre-existing conditions, or dropping a patient while they are ill. The bill would also create a government healthcare provider for those who cannot afford private insurance companies. The healthcare bill was narrowly passed with the help of the only republican supporting the bill, Anh Cao from Louisiana. President Obama has stated that he hopes the senate will do the same as the house and pass the legislation within the year. The republicans that opposed the bill along with 39 democrats. Nancy Pelosi helped to pass the bill past the anti-abortion democrats by voting on abortion controls, which passed in the house 240-194.

I believe that the healthcare bill is a crucial piece of legislature that must be passed in order for the United States to have a chance of succeeding in their later years. Without the healthcare bill, all the uninsured people will eventually get sick and will not be able to afford the medicine needed to treat whatever illness they have contracted and could potentially infect a multiple number of people. The Republicans state that the bill costs too much money, but in the long run, the increased number of insured people will help to stimulate the economy because they will not have to worry about not getting sick and can spend more money in the economy and helping boost the economy what it was at before this crash.

Source: The New York Times

House Hoorays for Healthcare?

The Healthcare bill was passed in a 220 to 215 vote in the House yesterday. This bill is expected to cost $1.1 trillion over the next 10 years. The main objective of this plan is clearly to make health insurance more accessible to Americans. The bill passed in the House is going to be paid for through fees and taxes, helping to ensure that 36 million people will be able to obtain Health insurance. The current bill is the biggest health care bill since the creation of Medicare. Although it is clearly being pushed by the Democrats, not all of the House Democrats voted for this new bill: 39 of them voted in opposition of the bill. Major changes were made to the bill to earn more support. One portion that was changed was coverage of abortion. Specifically Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, allowed for House Representatives "try to tighten any use of federal money to fund the procedure." [1]
However, with all of those factors going on, there are many other parts of the Bill that are seemingly being overlooked. Many people are aware of the new proposed Health insurance would make sure that people with pre-existing conditions couldn't be dropped by their health insurance companies, but how many were aware of the portion of the Bill that said there would be lower taxes for gay couples whose employers give out health benefits? [2]. While this is a giant step for Gay rights activists, it might be time to question how closely the people in Congress are looking at this Bill. A Bill with so many different factors in it is bound to have some flaws. One has to wonder how the representatives in Congress will be able to decipher such a Bill, and how they can determine whether or not it should be passed for all of the American people. Not to mention the fact that there are multiple forms of this Bill, no doubt all including different things. Harry Reid, the majority leader, is even planning on bringing a bill to the Senate floor "as soon as possible." [1].
Only time will tell what Bill will be passed, and if it will actually make it in time for the optimistic end of 2009 timeline that President Obama is working for.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/health/policy/09healthcare.html?_r=1&hp
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/health/policy/08benefits.html?ref=policy

11/08/09 Health Care Baton Passes To Senate

The health care bill was passed by the House late Saturday night by a 220-215 vote, which included 39 Democrats in opposition and one Republican supporting it. This is said to be the biggest expansion of health care coverage since Medicare was first created.

All that is left is for the Senate to pass its own version of the bill. Then a congressional conference committee will meet and combine the two proposals into a consensus version that will have to be approved by both chambers and signed off by Obama.

Unfortunately, the Senate’s version of the bill may be forestalled by Senator Joseph Lieberman. Due to his disapproval of a government-run public health insurance option, Lieberman stated that “if the public option is in there, as a matter of conscience, I will not allow the bill to come to a final vote.” Lieberman’s decision would impact the outcome because the Democratic caucus has the minimum of 60 votes to overcome a Republican filibuster (a form of obstruction in a legislature or other decision-making body whereby one attempts to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a proposal by extending a debate on that proposal.) Also against the bill is Republican Mike Pence. He believes that the bill would raise costs, increase the deficit and lead to a government takeover of the health care system. Republican leader John Boehner also declared that the $1.2 trillion legislation would add to the countries already high debt.

The only Republican who supported the bill was Joseph Cao. He said that his decision was based on what he believed was beneficial to his district. Rather than voting in favor of his party, he thought of the uninsured and poor people of his district who are still suffering from Hurricane Katrina.

With all the controversy surrounding the House’s version of the bill, the decision came in the last eight seconds left of the voting period. With the Democrats counting down, Pelosi said “the bill is passed” and banged the gavel to finalize it.


http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/08/health.care/index.html

Democrats Use Election to Push Agenda

Following the results of Tuesday's elections, Congressional Democrats said the losses in the New Jersey and Virginia governors' races and a House win in New York should give new insistence to their legislative agenda. Democratic lawmakers and strategists blamed the loss on voters' uneasiness over the economy. They believe the voters did not see Democrats making changes in health, energy, and national security that they promised when they were elected a year ago.

Democrats still face the health care issue, as well as problems like curbing global warming. Should they take a more liberal approach to motivate their supporters or should they write policies that attract independents to protect Democrats in conservative areas?

Republicans inferred that the election demonstrated the rejection of Democratic policies. However, several Democratic lawmakers believe the election could have an opposite result and drive Democrats to recapture the support of the voters who were central to the 2008 election victories.

Nevertheless, Democrats in both chambers of Congress state that the results of the election will not influence their views on how to vote on health care. Mr. Boyd, a Florida Democrat, stated, "My decision is based on the substance of the bill and how it affects my constituents and nothing else."

Historical health care overhaul legislation is expected to pass in the House on Saturday. The Democrats' bill would cover ninety six percent of insurable Americans, whereas the Republicans' bill would cover eighty three percent. After the health care issue has been resolved, Congress can undertake other problems. The American people are impatient and are desperate for results. You can only keep your fingers crossed for so long. Whatever the Democrats end up deciding on, they better have results for the people to see.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/us/politics/05cong.html?_r=1&ref=politics

Republicans Elected in N.J. and Virginia

Following this Election Day, some American citizens are considerably surprised for New Jersey and Virginia's election turnouts, as these two typically Democratic states have elected Republican officials. The newly elected Eric Cantor, the Republican Representative from New Jersey, the first and only Jewish republican member of the House, and states that, “The victories last night here and in New Jersey indicate that when Republicans stand united we can win, whether it’s in a northern state or a southern state, and we can appeal to the independent voters.” In New Jersey, Christopher J. Christie became the first Republican to win statewide in 12 years by vowing to attack the state’s fiscal problems.

Michael Steele, the Republican national chairman, was noted as excitingly, “jubilant” for the election turnouts. Steele states, “A couple of months ago, Republicans were written off…most of you were reminiscing of the good old days, and what had happened to them.”

Some American citizens declare that the uprising of Republican politicians in typically Democratic states is a sign of distaste with their Democratic president. Other American citizens claim that in a time of economic hardships, the conservative view on finances is more prosperous in many diverse states than Democratic ideals are, and that New Jersey and Virginian residents chose accordingly. Either way, one-winged Americans who have previously ignored their ability to vote in a state because of its majorities’ opposing view may now view their privilege with more excitement and hope that their “minority” wing will succeed. One may ask oneself if this is a prediction for the turnouts of the mid-term elections next year, or at the very least, interest some Americans in voting in the hopes that their participation may actually swing the election.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/nyregion/05elect.html?_r=1&ref=politics

A Nation Under Surveillance

In Americas quest to fight terrorism our government has given up our basic liberties. Since this war has commenced privacy had been virtually ignored in order to "protect" the American civilians. September 11,2001 has catalyzed the creation of unconstitutional acts. These acts include the Patriot Act, National Security Letter provision, Material Support Statute, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Americans have questioned whether they are wiling to give away their privacy for protection. In these acts, provisions, and statutes Americans have no choice of retaining their privacy. These acts have contradicted amendments and continue to chip away at our liberties. The government can access any bit of information simply on a mere suspicion. The government is legitimized by the Constitution.....however in our very own Constitution it states that the government cannot conduct any unreasonable search and seizure.

As America continues to "protect" its citizens amendments are being violated. For example when traveling and "random" searches are conducted do the officers have a warrant or anything to check our bags. In our very own home state how was it that detectives could bust into homes without any sort of warrants and simply just a suspicion of terrorists. Although these acts make Americans feel secure we must question whether or not we are willing to give it up for rudimentary liberties and whether or not it is constitutional. When our country was first established it stood for preserving liberties well, what do we stand for today?


http://pubrecord.org/politics/5944/controversial-patriot-provisions/

Taking it personally.

I feel like my blog posts are different from everyone else's.. I like to put my own input on things and bring it from my home country. Although I've never been there and have yet to expose myself more to America and South Korea, I guess it's a way for me to update myself. The following article is something I've found myself exposed to many times:

Many South Koreans have pride in "ethnic homogeneity" which is basically being ignorant to other ethnic groups. When they see other Koreans with non-Koreans, they spit racial slurs and distasteful slang to these people. They'll cuss in Korean and put on faces of ignorance because they find it DISGUSTING. I properly use "they" because I don't include myself in that group.

NYTimes writer Choe Sang-hun goes on in the article to discuss the history behind racist remarks and other experiences Koreans went through. During the Korean War, Korean women were used by both Japanese and Chinese as sex slaves and toys for pleasure, and were put in camps to be "messed with". Hearing of my home country's history puts a fiery anger in my heart because women were USED AND ABUSED.

Even after the Korean War, although the article doesn't state this, women of East Asia were looked upon as "jewels of the East" and if you've never seen "Memoirs of a Geisha", you'll have no idea what I'm talking about. But just knowing that after we're treated this way, we spit back at other countries as if they've done something? PITIFUL.

I understand that women in my own country were used and I know that it's a painful thing. But also knowing that my country is as ignorant as those who did those things to us, it's childish. South Koreans are racist people and it annoys the living daylights out of me that even in AMERICA, they're still as racist as they were when they were before moving to the States. It brings SHAME upon the country and DISGRACE to our ethnicity. Honestly after reading this article, I feel like South Korea has given itself a slap across the face. Good job.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/world/asia/02race.html?pagewanted=1&ref=world

CIT Group Files for Bankruptcy

Over $700 billion in government aid has been handed out to various banks and companies in hopes of keeping them alive. Of this $700 billion, $2.33 billion has been handed out to lending giant CIT Group Inc. Even after receiving billions in government aid, this afternoon, November 1, 2009, the 101-year-old lender filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in a Manhattan federal court. How the government could let this happen leaves me perplexed.

The first federal bailouts were quick responses to the sudden collapses of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and, most importantly, Lehman Brothers. The first bailouts kept other banks from sudden failure while helping to resuscitate Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Lehman Brothers. The problem arises not with the first bailouts -- which were rightly given, not allowing the economy to fall to the edge -- but with the subsequent bailouts. In the following federal aid packages CIT Group received its bailout money. These bailouts were given much like the first one; without any regulation. This was a mistake.

Only now is the government thinking of tightening regulation on the few so-called "too big to fail" financial institutions. This lack of regulation on the bailout money is most likely what allowed CIT Group to fall to filing for bankruptcy.

If CIT Group does not return to its former state of lending, it will have a detrimental effect on the economy. Unfortunately, it seems highly unlikely that CIT Group will return to lending normally again, as lenders depend on the confidence of their creditors and customers. This holds true for all banks. If lending does not resume, the economy will never be able to recover from its current ailing state. For this reason, the federal government needs to step in again and apply more regulation.

This bankruptcy means $2.33 billion in taxpayer money will forever be lost. Had the government attached regulation to its bailout packages, this might not have occurred. The money lost was not a loan from China, or some other country, but the money of this country's citizens. The government should have taken more care with the money of its citizens. This bankruptcy is no small matter, and should hold as warning to the federal government. More regulation should be applied to the banking sector before matters get any worse than they currently are.

Sources:

The New York Times

The New York Times

The New York Times