New budget costs, same stalemate: GOP sees the long term, Democrats see today

For the past three years, representatives from the Democratic and Republican party, also known as the GOP, have been working alongside many White House officials on Capital Hill to determine the budget for the upcoming sequester in October of 2013. During this sequester, many budget cuts will be needed to ensure a thriving economy, more than in the past decade or so. But, the Democratic party and the Republican party have approached this issue in very different ways, which has cause an ongoing battle. The Republican party believes in planning for the next three decades because it will offer "a clearer view of the challenges ahead." But, to look forward at the next thirty years, the Republican party looked at the last thirty, and focused primarily on the "Baby Boom" during the 1950's. They believed that due to the large population growth during that era, these upcoming years will be affected. With a larger elderly population, more federal funding and resources will need to be given for their benefit. Therefore, many other programs will suffer, and many more budget cuts will need to be made. On the other hand, the Democratic party is looking to approach the upcoming sequester by looking at the next decade alone. They strongly oppose the Republican plan, and believe that they are simply looking for another "stall tactic" in dealing with the immediate budget issues. The Democratic party believes that the government needs to focus on the upcoming future, instead of decades ahead, when multiple factors could change. Although these meetings have been taking place for years, neither party has come to a compromise.

Based on the evidence from both the article and in class, "What to do you  believe would be the most effective way to approach the upcoming sequester? Please explain your opinion."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/new-budget-talks-same-stalemate-gop-sees-the-long-term-democrats-see-today/2013/06/12/01af6846-d370-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html

Dan Kallin Current Event 2

The chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, Alan B. Krueger has decided to leave the council to teach at Princeton University, so President Barack Obama has to replace him. Obama decided to appoint Jason Furman to chair the Council of Economic Advisers. Furman has a doctorate in economics from Harvard University, along with two other degrees. It is unconventional for a president to appoint someone to chair the Council who has never actually served on it. Some people might say that this appointment is nepotism, which is when a president appoints under qualified people to important positions because he is friends or somehow related to those people. However, Obama justified his choice saying that Furman is "one of the most brilliant economic minds of his generation." Furman has the reputation to prove it, for he was an aide to the Joseph E Stiglitz, who the the chairman of the Council when Bill Clinton was president. He also was the economic policy director in Obama's 2008 campaign. Furman has respect from both Republicans and Democrats because even though he is a Democrat, he has made many compromises with Republicans. Each member of the Council has a different role and Furman is expected to work closely with Obama, as he has done in the past.
Do you think having a Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers who is so close to Obama will be hurt or be beneficial to the United States' economy. Please explain your answer.

Article: Obama Names Longtime Aide as His Chief Economic Adviser
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/business/jason-furman-is-named-obamas-chief-economic-adviser.html?_r=0
Source: New York Times

U.S. has not seen expected "Great Recovery", as economy continues to fall short

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/new-report-says-us-hasnt-seen-expected-great-recovery-as-economy-continues-to-fall-short/2013/06/05/9c3ffa2e-cde4-11e2-8573-3baeea6a2647_story.html

The world has been in an economic downfall since 2009, but withing the last two years America, along with the world has slowly began to recover. Currently America is recovering from this downfall, but the economy is not recovering as fast as people had hoped. Currently the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is at 1.9%. By 2015 this is only expected to grow to 3%. Most economic specialists hoped this number to be closer to 4% or higher by this year to early next year. The percentage can increase or decrease depending on how well the housing market does. On top of the slowed GDP rate, the unemployment rate in America is also not decreasing as much as they had hoped. The national unemployment rate is at 6.9%, and this number is expected to drop to 6.6% by the end of this year. Currently many companies are not hiring because they are not sure how stable the current economy is, and they are able to get all the products they make or sell with the current amount of workers they have, so they have no need to hire anyone.

Edward Leamer, a researcher at UCLA, says that "It is not a recovery. It's not even normal growth, its bad." Do you agree with this statement based on what you have heard or read? How do you think America is doing compared to the worlds economy?

Surpluses Help, but Fiscal Woes for States Go On

This week my current event was about how a lot of states are expecting to get surpluses (extra money) at the end of their fiscal year. This is the first time this has happened since the economic downturn in 2008. Although many states are very happy and being very public about this great success it is very misleading to the U.S. population. Even though the economy is starting to look up again many states, even the one with surpluses, are in large amounts of debt due to backlogged bills from medicare, pension funds, and delayed road work. Most of the surpluses in fact, are already spoken for. With the economy recovering many officials are looking to restore services, rehire workers, and others are pushing new tax cuts. A lot of governors are concerned with this and urge these officials to hold off on making any changes that could be damaging to this economic progress. Many are advising states to begin trying to identify money that is resulting from a one-time-only activity, such as selling investments which many people did at the end of last year, and money that is not.

Surpluses Help, but Fiscal Woes for States Go On

Do you think that lawmakers should begin to restore services, rehire workers, and create new tax cuts? Why or why not? Also, what do you believe is the best thing for states to do with these surpluses?

Michele Foland Economy

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/21/is-the-economy-saving-obamas-approval-ratings/

In the article "Is the Economy Saving Obama's Approval Rates?" it talks about how the overall and economic approval rates of Obama have had almost no change during his presidency, even with all of the controversies going on in the country right now. In the Washington Post polls for economic approval the ratings have been a bit lower based on how the voters rate Obama on the economy. Also the overall approval ratings for Obama have also gone down a little bit, possibly because of all the talk around Benghazi, the I.R.S. and the Justice Department, which had a negative impact.


Based on what you heard/read, what do you believe is the actual reason why Obama's ratings are becoming lower? Explain your opinion.

Mariana Ferreira -Economy

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/04/business/economy/us-adds-165000-jobs-in-april.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Today in class, an article named "Jobs Data Eases Fears of Economic Slowdown in US". According to the text, nearly 200,000 jobs have been created monthly since the beginning of the year making the country's unemployment rate go the lowest it has been since 2008. This good news left the stock market with a 1 percent. Currently,although, unemployment rates are about 7.5% which although is a good number still could be a lot better. Some people such as Alan Krueger have been very optimistic about the new status of the country stating that :“While more work remains to be done, today’s employment report provides further evidence that the U.S. economy is continuing to recover from the worst downturn since the Great Depression". Other people although such as Mr.Daco believe the country would have been better off and further in its economy if it wasn't for the government, meaning the nearly 200,000 jobs are not making a great difference in the economy.

Based on what you have heard today do you believe adding more jobs to the country will ease the economy? Explain.

Danielle Calandra 2nd Current Event

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/03/27/need-for-networking-puts-black-job-seekers-at-disadvantage/?KEYWORDS=racial+inequality

This article Need for Networking Puts Black Job Seekers at Disadvantage is an opinion article by Neil Shah. Shah talks about how African American job seekers are at a disadvantage when applying for a job due to the increasingly important "social capital" seen as needed in order to get the better, higher paying jobs. Social capital is the network of people you know and who are able to help you get a job and then work for the higher paying promotions. This Shah says, is putting minorities at a disadvantage because these people don't have the well established contacts through family and friends who've been involved in a business for many years. Shah also talks about how the jobless rate has been and continues to be higher for African Americans in the United States than whites and that in-group favoritism is helping this rate stay this way. This favoritism Shah talks about isn't illegal but helps to reproduce the racism and job inequalities.

Do you agree with Neil Shah in that African Americans don't have as much of a "social capital" as whites? Also, do you see "social capital" or having contacts within a company as important in order to get a job, and then exceed at it?