Final Reflection Essay Questions

Please answer each question in paragraph form. Be sure to write clear, detailed and specific responses.

1.       Which of our units of study have you found most helpful in defining American identity?

2.      Discuss the role you played in class.  Assess your participation throughout the year.

3.      How have your reading and writing skills developed over the course of the year?

4.      Which of the essential questions for this course was most compelling to you? Why?

Course essential questions:
• What does it mean to be an American?
• How can groups with different values and norms exist in the same space?
• How is history remembered by those who experience it?
• What is truth and who gets to tell it?

5.      Your final literature question:

This year, we read three novels: The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-time Indian, The Things They Carried, and The Great Gatsby. Though they are books that discuss very different themes, topics and ideas, there are also some potentially major overarching ideas, as well. Some people might argue that, in the end, these are all books about LOVE. (Yes, you heard that correctly.) Think beyond romantic love--think about things like brotherly love, love of self, love of country, etc.

For this assignment, you'll write a detailed analytical paragraph, using SPA format. Your question: Do you agree that these are all books about LOVE? If so, please explain and analyze. If you disagree, tell me what you think they're all about instead. (You must pick ONE idea that fits all three books, and analyze it.) Please don't write "I agree" or "I disagree" in your topic statement--just write a clear topic statement that shares the topic of your paragraph.

Katrina's Current Event

And Now, Only One Senior Al Qaeda Leader Left:

• Abu Yahya Al-Libi was killed, and Ayman Al-Zawahiri is still left
• Al-Libi was the #2 leader and was killed by a CIA drone strike in the Pakistan tribal region
• AQAP is the force that is still left and remains a threat. They are located in the Arabian Penninsula and  have attempted to attack the U.S. They are responsible for the Christmas day underwear bombing in 2009 and putting bombs in ink cartriges on  cargo planes in October 2010. Last month one of our spies found out that they improved their bombs from 2009 and plan to bring down one of our commercial jets.

Historical Significance- Al Qaeda is responsible for the 9/11 attack and their mission is to attack America or it's allies. Their most recent attack was on July 7, 2005 in London.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/05/opinion/bergen-al-qaeda-whos-left/index.html?hpt=wo_c2

Question: At this point in time, how much of a threat is Al Qaeda to the U.S.? Should we be worried? When do you think would be an appropriate time to withdraw our troops?

Zack Current Event

In a recent interview, former Governor of Massachusetts and Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney was asked about President Barack Obama’s Foreign Policy and did not hesitate to say that on a graded scale, Romney would give him quote on quote “An 'F', there's no question about that". When asked for his harsh reasoning Romney said "When I look at foreign policy, when I look across the board in foreign policy, I look at the fact that he was looking to have a force of American troops staying in Iraq securing what was so hard to have been won there with a status of forces agreement. He failed to achieve it.” In response to Romney’s comments, a member of Barack Obama’s re-election campaign, Tim Roemer responded by saying that the Governor was “misguided”.  "Since taking office, President Obama has responsibly ended the war in Iraq; decimated al-Qaeda's leadership, including Osama bin Laden; is winding down the war in Afghanistan; reduced the threat of nuclear weapons; strengthened our alliances; increased our exports overseas, creating jobs here at home; and led the world in putting crippling sanctions on Iran…Gov. Romney is out of the mainstream even of his own party on foreign policy, and many prominent Republican experts have recognized President Obama's accomplishments on these issues."
Link: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/31/romney-grades-obama-f-no-question-about-that/

So the question that remains is whether or not President Obama should receive an “F” for his foreign policy plan? What grade would you give him?

Troy Sullivan Drone Strikes As you all know on September 11, 2001 terrorists from the organization Al Qaeda hijacked four planes and flew two into the twin towers. But what I did not know is that less than a week after this President Bush authorized unmanned aerial strikes to kill Osama Bin Laden. These are more commonly called Drone Attacks, which are vehicles that have no pilot but are controlled by people behind computers where they can not get hurt. Obama has used these in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Yemen. Since President Obama took office, he has increased the amount of attacks since George Bush, launching 275 attacks in Pakistan alone. Robert Grenier who was the head of the CIA’s counter terrorism center said that these attacks have been dangerous to civilians because of the broad target the U.S. has. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has estimated that up to 830 civilians have been killed in Pakistan, 138 in Yemen, and 57 in Somalia. Totaling to 1025 deaths, in attempt to kill off Al Qaeda, this is over a third of the people that died in 9/11. Over this past weekend U.S. drone attacks targeted a funeral gathering in Pakistan for a militant that had died over a past attack. It is not sure but they say they might have hit a mosk, a place of worship for Muslims. On the other hand people think that it is an effective way to eliminate this organization. Over the past week Al Qaeda’s number two Abu Yahya al-Libi was said killed in a drone attack. It hasn’t been confirmed besides the fact that 18 militants died in the attack and one of them might have been him. An insider in a close-by village said that people are moving out of areas that are commonly targeted therefore abandoning their lives they have had before. Attacks like this are causing a lot of anger in these countries and might not be worth killing of Al Qaeda if so many civilians’ lives are at stake. My question to you is 1. Do you believe that the drone strikes are a good weapon and should continue to be used? 2. Will this affect President Obama's re-election if he decides to continue these attacks?

Obama pledges support for veterans, families

• President Barack Obama used a Memorial Day Ceremony to say it is time for Americans to properly welcome home Vietnam Veterans and show them and their families the respect and gratitude they deserved but didn’t receive decades ago 

• Obama said “It was national shame, a disgrace that should have never happened. That’s why here today; we resolve that it will not happen again.”

• This year marks the 50^th anniversary of the United States deploying a significant military presence in Vietnam.

• In 1962, about 10,000 U.S. military advisers joined the 900 already in the country

• A proclamation signed on friday by Obama said the Vietnam 50^th anniversary commemoration will continue until November 11, 2025 “To honor and give thanks to a generation of proud Americans who saw our country through one of the most challenging missions we have ever faces.” Said Obama.

• The first phase of the commemoration will take place over the next two years, involves generating support and participation, with a focus on “hometown” events providing recognitions and thanks to Vietnam veterans.

• “A central part of this 50^th anniversary is to tell your story as it should have been told all along” the president said, he called it “another chance to set the record straight.”

• Obama asked Vietnam veterans in the crowd to stand and he said words that were long over do: “Welcome home, Welcome home, Welcome home. Thank you. We appreciate you. Welcome home.”

• Obama said the lesson of Vietnam was to separate the war from the warrior, so that patriotism never again becomes what he called a “political sword” that divides nations.

 Why do you think it took this long for people to give the respect that the Vietnam veterans deserved? Do you think that was right for people not to care like they should have when they got home from war?

al Qaeda vs. the United States

Katie Stacey

Current Event #2 Outline

NATO kills al-Qaeda leader

May 31, 2012

Nearly a year after the United States killed al-qaida’s leader; Osama bin-Laden in retaliation against the September 11, 2001 attack, the U.S. strikes again killing another two of the terrorist groups members. On May 27^th, 2012, an airstrike in eastern Kunar, Afganistan carried out by the U.S. led NATO in killing al-Qaeda’s second highest leader in the country; Sakhr al-Taifi and another al-Qaeda militant.

Al Qaeda and the U.S:

The U.S. has had several successful attacks against al qaeda’s leaders in the past…

- Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was the senior leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, but his safe house was hit by U.S. missiles in a targeted killing. His successor, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, was also later killed by US and Iraqi forces on April 18, 2010.

However after years of damage done to al Qaeda they made a plan and killed many Americans in the September 11 attack.

September 11, 2001:

-19 terrorists from the al-Qaeda group hijacked four passenger jets targeted for New York City and Washington D.C.

-One plane crashed into the World Trade Center complex in New York city, another crashed into the pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, and another plane initially intended to hit a target in Washington D>C> landed in Pennsylvania due to passengers attempting to take over the plane.

-In total 227 civilians and 19 hijackers died.

-Osama Bin Laden took responsibility for the attacks stating that his motives were because of the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia and sanctions against Iraq.

The U.S. planned an attack specifically targeting Osama bin-Laden that took place on May 2, 2011.

Osama bin-Laden:

-killed in Pakistan on May 2, 2011 by NAVY seals

-mission called Operation Neptune Spear: ordered by Barack Obama

-The Navy, the united states naval special warfare development group (SEAL Team Six), Airborne and the CIA all contributed to the raid in bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan

The U.S. NATO used letters found at the death of bin Laden to determine where leaders would flee after September 11.One of the letters stated that all militants should leave Pakistan’s North and South Waziristan tribal areas because many leaders had already been killed there. This specific letter also led them to the Kunar’s Watahpur district as bin laden said it was better because “it’s rougher terrain”. This then led them to Sakhr al-Taifi.

 Sakhr al-Taifi:

-Traveled between Afghanistan and Pakistan carrying out commands from senior al-qaida leadership

-responsible for commanding foreign insurgents and directing attacks against coalition and afghan forces

-supplied weapons and equipment to insurgents in the east and managed transport of insurgent fighters into Afghanistan

During other attacks civilians had been harmed in Pakistan aggravating protesters. However, Pentagon Press Secretary, George Little told reporters that no civilians were killed in the attack against Sakhr al-Taifi.

http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_death-of-sakhr-al-taifi-major-blow-to-al-qaeda-pentagon_1695616

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/world/asia/osama-bin-laden-is-killed.html?pagewanted=all

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-05-29/asia/world_asia_afghanistan-al-qaeda-deaths_1_al-qaeda-leader-senior-al-coalition-and-afghan-forces?_s=PM:ASIA

Do you think that the American government is taking the right approach against al Qaeda? If not, how could the approach be improved? Do you have suspicion that the United States could be in danger of al Qaeda fighting back like they did on September 11? 

Guest Speaker Background Readings

Click here to access our website.  Once there, find and read the document titled "Thieu Background Reading"  under the FOREIGN POLICY folder. 

It is expected that you will come to class on Monday having read the entire packet. (Complaining is neither welcome nor warranted : )  This reading will provide background on our speaker's grandfather, Nguyen Van Thieu, who served as the last President of South Vietnam before Saigon fell to the communist invasion.  Feel free to do additional research so that you can be prepared to fully participate in what we hope will be a discussion amongst us all.  You might even consider preparing some questions!

Iran's Nuclear Energy

This past Wednesday on May 23^rd the six world powers got together in Bagdad. The other five world powers: the United States, France, the UK, Germany, Russia, and China offered Iran new proposals on their nuclear power program.  Currently “Iran's highest-level uranium enrichment — at 20 percent — which many world leaders fear could be quickly turned into warhead-grade material.” 20 percent is a weapons grade level, which as stated above could turn to be used as a warhead. Iran’s unnecessary large about of nuclear energy’s logic is backed up by saying that Iran’s “efforts are focused only on peaceful uses for nuclear energy” The six world powers all made suggestions to Iran on what to do about this increasingly dangerous amount of nuclear energy. The world powers, “hope to set out a step by step process that [especially] the U.S. hopes will eventually lead to an end to Iran’s enrichment program and Iran hopes will ease punitive sanctions that are choking its economy. But hardliners on both sides are casting doubt on the prospects for a diplomatic solution to the standoff.” Due to the pressure from the other countries with their suggestion on the nuclear energy program Iran agreed to give the IAEA access to its key nuclear-related facilities. The IAEA basically works to regulate the nuclear energy and power all over the World. The IAEA inspects nuclear facilities to make sure that the use of nuclear science is safe, secure and for actual peaceful use. EU, U.S. and the United Nations have all imposed sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program. The No conclusion has come yet to what suggestion Iran has accepted is going to go by, but is among the topics to debate for the six World leaders. Since many countries have and are continuously using nuclear energy it is important for countries to help take part in others decisions to keep their own countries safe.

Do you think that the 5 [Russia, China, Germany, France, UK] world powers have the right or should be allowed to try and control/interfere with Iran’s nuclear energy?  Even though, each country is for the most part allowed to regulate its own nuclear energy use and for what. Why or why not? 

Afghanistan Funding Effort

At the Chicago Summit on May 20^th and 21^st hosted by President Barack Obama, the central focus was the United States and NATO trying to build an Afghan army that would allow us to pull international troops out. However, the United States is trying to avoid getting stuck with the check for $4.1 billion a year and over 60 countries and organizations were invited to the summit in hopes of getting them involved with the funding issue. Originally, the Afghan army consisted of 350,000 soldiers, but the number got reduced to 230,000 due to the economic reality in Afghanistan’s security needs after 2014. If the number of soldiers wasn’t reduced, the United States would have had to pay close to $7 billion a year. Keeping forces armed and fighting in a country still heavily reliant on outside aid will cost an estimated $4 billion a year and to supplement American assistance, the Obama administration is asking its allies to provide about $1.3 billion of that annually. “The economic problems in Europe and the United States, combined with the continued concerns about corruption inside of Afghanistan, makes it an uphill battle to get countries to make long-term commitments on funding for Afghanistan,” said Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. In New York, the UN special envoy to Afghanistan, Jan Kubis, said a clear commitment was needed from countries at the Nato summit that “If the countries will fail to support Afghanistan, (then) in five, 10 years from now … we might have a very nasty situation coming back,” he told Reuters. “We don’t want to have once again a restart of everything because it will be a lost investment … including lives lost in vain.” Countries that have already agreed to help pay include Germany (contributing $190 million annually beginning in 2015), Britain (contributing $110 million beginning in 2015), Australia (contributing $100 million annually for three years), and Afghanistan (contributing $500 million toward its own army). The goal is $2.3 billion from the U.S. and nations outside the fighting coalition, and $1.3 billion from coalition nations other than the U.S.

Question: What arguments could America propose to the European countries so that they may aid in providing funding for the Afghanistan effort?  

On September 11th, 2001, our nation was attacked by what we believe was Osama Bin Ladin and his alqueida organization. Because of so, the United States declared war on Iraq and Afghanistan and has been enrolled in this war for more than a decade. Today, nearly everyone feels as though we as a nation need to get out of the middle east, including current president Barack Obama. Statistics have shown this to be true as 2 years ago 46 percent wanted to prolong the war, a year ago it was 37 and now its 27 percent. President Barack Obama says however that instead of just getting out of the war immediately, he has a plan to only get out of their in 2014. he says he wants to end the war responsibly and reasonably and no have it end up like the Vietnam war where our nation lost in battle due to poor management of the war by LBJ and President Nixon. Obama said that he "will not keep Americans in harms way a single day longer than is absolutely required" and that "we must finish the job". Because of this issue, his election has also taken a toll on his reelection. People disagree with the fact that he has a plan to only be out of the Middle East by 2014 and this has caused a lot of doubters saying if he is the right president.

Question: Do you think Obama's plan is the right way to go? Why or why not?  

Christian's Current Event

On January 2011 South Sudan seceded from Sudan following a self-determination referendum, which is a principle in international law that nations have the right to choose has control of them. One of the reasons South Sudan had chose to secede was due to the feeling of being oppressed by their Arab and Muslim neighbors of the north. Due to the recent problems that the two Sudan’s are facing the United Nation has decided to make a resolution; a resolution in which they will use non-military sanctions against both Sudan, and South Sudan if the violence does not halt, and if they do not return to negotiations. A sanction is a provision of a law enacting a penalty for disobedience. One example of a Sanction that the U.N had passed was Resolution 1267 of (1999). This sanction demanded the denial of permission to take off, or land any aircraft on Taliban owned land. The sanction also froze funds and other financial resources that were directly or indirectly controlled by the Taliban. Sanctions are important because they act as a non-violent form of discipline.

Link to Article: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57426509/u.n-tries-to-prevent-a-sudans-war-with-sanctions/?tag=cbsnewsMainColumnArea

Question: Do you think the sanctions will make Sudan and South Sudan come to peace? If so then why, and if not how do you think the U.N. should try to make peace?

Derek Scafidi Current Event

Hilary Clinton has been in India the past few days this week speaking about how India has been doing well reducing its dependence on Iranian Oil. Hilary Clinton met West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee in Kolkata and spoke about the United States relationship with India. She said that India shares the same feelings towards Iran. She also spoke about the feelings towards women, both in India and in the United States. She talked about the well achieved “quotas” for women and how well it has worked, and compared it to our nation, how excited she was to run for president, but had to drop out due to “the system being hard to navigate, for both men and women, but particularly for women.

Historical Significance between US and India:

-We both share the same feelings towards Iran

-India imports most of its oil from Iran

-trade with india

      India to Us

           increased by 21.12% to $6.94 billion.

1.     Diamonds & precious stones (25%)

2.     Textiles (29.01%)

3.     Iron & Steel (5.81%)

4.     Machinery (4.6%)

5.     Organic chemicals (4.3%)

6.     Electrical Machinery (4.28%)

     US to India

 Merchandise exports from U.S. to India increased by 20.09.26% to U.S. $2.95 billion.

Engineering goods & machinery (including electrical) (31.2%)

1.     Aviation & aircraft ( 16.8%)

2.     Precious stones & metals (8.01%)

3.     Optical instruments & equipment (7.33%) 

4.     Organic chemicals (4.98%)

"Well, India has reduced its dependence on Iranian oil. I know their refineries have stopped asking for orders to purchase Iranian oil. So they certainly have taken steps," Clinton told the CNN in an interview. And we have worked with them and offered suggestions about alternative sources of supply at an affordable cost," -Hilary Clinton 

Question: Why do you think the United States wants India to reduce its dependence on Iraq for oil? Also, Why do you think that  the look of women professionally is different in India then it is here?

Source:

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/highlights-hillary-clinton-on-foreign-policy-politics-and-india-207134

http://ww2.shaadi.com/olmt/register/pop-under/?a=1&&utm_source=Partner&utm_medium=Times_Popbehind&utm_content=signup&utm_campaign=G38CIT&

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/hillary-clinton-lauds-india-for-reducing-dependence-on-iranian-oil/articleshow/13055795.cms

Topic: War on terror
Title of Article: On surprise Afghanistan visit, Obama says goal of defeating Al Qaeda 'within our reach'
Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/01/obama-arrives-in-afghanistan/ (Fox News)


Nearly a year after Bin Laden's death,  President Obama travelled to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan to conclude the terrorist war, and to initiate a new partnership settlement with the Afghan government. He took a brief moment to coincide with his troops in order to address that the decade long-war in Afghanistan was finally coming to a halt. Obama promises that a new agreement will be offered to sovereign Afghanistan from American influences, but still offer support in the rebuilding the country. Obama addressed that the new agreement was a “historic moment for our two nations.” Still many fear that his heralding in another Middle Eastern war serves as another political advantage to his next political election.

The term “War on Terror” has been misguidedly used by previous politicians to enforce severe military conduct. After the Beirut barracks bombings of 1983,  the Reagan administration had used the similar term “war on terrorism” to pass new legislations that would marshal military forces against terrorist organizations. The greatest act of terrorism in America occurred in September 11th, 2011 when the terrorist group Al Qaeda launched a massive bombing in the World Trade Centers. After the attack President George W. Bush commenced a new campaign that enforced the strict abolishment of terrorist groups all over the world. Though the campaign was directed toward Al Qaeda, President Bush expanded his opinions to a global fight on terrorism. His new campaign altered our foreign policies to persuade a global fight on terrorism, and enhanced America’s Homeland Security for more strict regulations. The end result was a formulation of a multinational organization called NATO that prominently focused in the destruction of terrorist groups.

The main focus of Obama’s arrival in Afghanistan his to formulate a new partnership agreement to better extend their relationship. He declares that the extensive war in the Middle East will be limited of American influence after 2014. Obama promises that the Afghan forces will be let independent, but with sprouted support from the American military. Obama states toward the reconstruction of Afghanistan that "As you stand up, you will not stand alone." Obama also announced that he has no purpose he administering a military foothold in Afghan soil, but instead wants to continue a presence of military forces in order to counteract any new uprising of Taliban influences. Essentially the agreement covered the security, economics, and governance of Afghanistan after 2014 while trying to construct a new sovereign nation.

Though a great political achievement accomplished by President Obama, many fear that the reason he settled for the agreement is to fund his political campaign in the upcoming election. His resolvement of two major Middle Eastern war brings great political attention to his campaign as well as an advantage over his competitors. Many believe that this was his sole purpose to settling a new international agreement, and that the dilemma in Afghanistan will still continue. In a previous military dispute, President Obama apprises his raid over Bin Laden, and questioned whether his adversary Mitt Romney would complete the same task. The situation is of Afghanistan is still skeptical to a large public, and the controversy continues on whether the government relations of the two nations will be stable.

Probing Questions: Is Obama’s settlement agreement only serve as an advantage for political propaganda to his upcoming campaign? Will the new partnership be stable? What will happen to the rest of the Al Qaeda group?

Era of Imperialism - Choosing a Foreign Policy Option

Your job is to come to class on Monday with a printed analytical argument (in a SPA paragraph) that explains which American foreign policy option was most appropriate at the turn of the 20^th century.  Take your evidence from either of the "Homefront Debate" speeches attached here (Under the 'Foreign Policy' folder).  This video will also be helpful in understanding the mindset of the time: PBS's Crucible of Empire.  

Anthony's Current event

My current event was about the problem with spending on schools and education. Each year we spend more and more on education, more than many other countries. But the issue is that we do not have the grades to show for it. Places like Canada, China, and North Korea are all doing academically better than the United States but are spending much less compared to us. With the economic crisis that we are in today, un-needed spending can not be over looked. Obama argues that with every one dollar we spend on education, we are getting 10 dollars back in future jobs and economic income. With the price of college increasing, people are worrying about if they will be able to get the job that they need afterwards. College isnt a guaranteed ticket into a blue collar lifestyle.
So the question I have is: Are we spending too much on education and is the spending worth it? And if not, are we getting back the knowledge and information we need to get a job from the schools?

Tim's Blog post; Student loan interest rate double or stay the same

         Many of us will be going in to college after we graduate next Spring.  It involves us getting student loans in the thousands of dollars.  There is a bill going through Congress that will double the student loan interest rate. Right now, there are not enough jobs to support many of the students who are graduating from college and it will be even worse if the interest rates double if the bill gets past. 

         Eager to energize young voters, President Barack Obama is depicting Republicans as obstacles to an affordable college education as he previews an argument he will make on university campuses next week in states crucial to his re-election.

        “This is a question of values,” Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address Saturday. “We cannot let America become a country where a shrinking number of people do really well while a growing number of people struggle to get by.”

        Education Secretary Arne Duncan said Friday that more than 7 million students would be financially squeezed if rates were to rise, to the cost of an additional $1,000 on average.

        Obama wants Congress to extend a law that cut interest rates on a popular federal loan program for low- and middle-income undergraduates. If the law expires, the rates will double on July 1, from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent.

         Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney also agrees with Obama on the Student Loan Bill which is very unusual.

        “ I fully support the effort to extend the low interest rate on student loans,” Romney said at the end of a seven-minute joint news conference with Rubio.

         There was some concern that that would expire halfway through the year, and I support extending the temporary relief on interest rates for students as a result of student loans, obviously, in part because of the extraordinarily poor conditions in the job market.”

          The National Defense Education Act (NDEA), signed into law on September 2, 1958, provided funding to United States education institutions at all levels.^[1] The act authorized funding for four years, increasing funding per year: for example, funding increased on eight program titles from 183 million dollars in 1959 to 222 million in 1960.^[2] While motivated by the increase in the number of students attending college and a growing national sense that U.S. scientists were falling behind scientists in the Soviet Union, it was arguably catalyzed by early Soviet success in the Space Race, notably the launch of the first-ever satellite, Sputnik, the year before.

Helps give money to kids going to college because of the fear of the Russians surpassing us in the education field, especially in the sciences.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-casts-gop-as-barrier-to-low-cost-education-republicans-hit-his-energy-policies/2012/04/21/gIQAngbGXT_story.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2012/0423/Student-loans-Obama-s-bid-to-rekindle-Yes-We-Can-among-youths

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/romney-backs-extension-of-low-student-loan-interest-rate/2012/04/23/gIQA7hIQcT_blog.html

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Ready-Reference/Legislative-Summary-Main-Page/Legislative-Summary/Education.aspx

question: It is very unusual for Obama and and Romney to be on the same page, do you agree with them in whether interest rates should not be doubled, or do you think they should? Explain.

Josh's Current Event (Economic Mistakes Obama Has Made)

CURRENT EVENT: Economic Mistakes Made by President Obama

In an article from US News in their opinion section, David Barker, a former Federal Reserve economist and author of Welcome to Free America, writes about how President Obama has made economic mistakes. He talks about how Obama “needs to be smarter about tax cuts, stimulus spending, and his rhetoric towards business.” Barker described how Obama was just inaugurated into office after the “worst financial panic since the Great Depression and the Stock Market Crash.” Despite how the economy is running today, smoothly and getting better, Barker finds that there are just a few mistakes that the Obama Administration is making.

Barker believes that the Administration is making “unnecessary tax cuts.” Barker states how the federal government needs an income source. He states how cutting government spending would be a better alternative than raising taxes. Barker also states how President Obama was supporting the tax reduction of employee payroll from 7.65 percent to 5.65 in one year. The reasoning for the tax cut was to “stimulate spending” so then the workers would get more money. The Administration planned on raising the taxes again the following year. Barker also stated how, although the tax cut would make it so workers got a bigger income, it then cost the government a rough estimate of $93 billion.

Another “mistake” that the Obama Administration has made, according to Barker, was inefficient stimulus spending. Barker stated how the Administration had created stimulus spending cost to about $170,000 and $400,000. The main goal of the stimulus spending was to increase jobs, but according to Barker, “a great deal of money appears to be wasted.” He states how only 7 percent of the spending was budgeted for infrastructure.

With relation to the Great Depression Era and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Barker talks about Robert Lucas who wrote about how FDR had an “anti-business rhetoric” where the government wouldn’t worry about “future taxes and regulations, and to cut back on investment plans.” Lucas then spoke of how Obama had the same “rhetoric” bust better than FDR. Obama gave businesses reason to worry about the economy. With the BP oil spill just recently and other drastic events that had happened that the government had to fund to help fix, the money had to go toward fixing these problems and Lucas stated how businesses shouldn’t be worrying about receiving their bonuses and making profits.

The main problem that David Barker talked about was how Obama has “no long term plan” for economics and to “reduce government debt.” Obama’s 2013 fiscal budget proposal predicted that federal dept would end up rising to close to 200 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or “The total value of goods produced and services provided in a country during one year (Google Dictionary). According to the Department of Treasury, the debt didn’t include the costs the government put into Social Security and Medicare, which debts grew larger. According to Barker, not only does the Obama Administration not have a long term plan, the senate hasn’t passed an annual budget since 2009.

Like after the crash of the Stock Market in 1929, businesses are becoming unwilling to invest because of tax increases and other possibilities to come in the future. However, if businesses knew what was to come in the near future, like tax cuts and government stimulus spending, they’d be more enthused to invest more.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/04/09/five-economic-mistakes-obama-is-making
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/04/08/low-approval-and-fragile-economy-spell-obama-reelection-trouble.html


QUESTION FOR THE BLOG: (Choose a scenario) If you were an affected business and had to coexist with the problems of Obama’s “plan,” how would you go about keeping the business alive? Would you have to cut employees or cut wages? If you ran a large business / chain, would you have to shut down businesses? How would you prepare for a crisis like this? OR, if you were Obama, what would your plan be? How would you handle tax cuts or increases, or stimulus spending to help the economy? With there being no “physical plan or budget” since 2009, how would you fix that? Is that why the economy is bad? How do you feel or what is your position on this issue? OR you could answer both.

Citizen Bank Scandal

All over the country Citizen Banks have been accused for manipulating peoples ATM transactions and debit cards in order to produce excess overdraft fees. The people that have been cheated rallied together in a class-action lawsuit, which is a whole group opposed to one person suing Citizen Bank.The lawsuit targeted over thirty different Citizen Banks over the country, putting Citizen Bank under pressure from the masses. US District Judge James Lawrence King of Miami, and numerous other lawyers took the case to the State District level. Citizen Bank was accused for using software programs to give out false fees to people who owed nothing to the bank. The bank tried to cheat some of its customers in order to make more money for themselves. The bank was changing the order of the debit card and ATM transactions in order to generate the higher fees. Citizen Bank settled with the charges and paid 137.5 million dollars for this scandal, a rather substantial loss. The action was not settled by the judge clearly to save the reputation of Citizen Bank. Jim Hughes, spokesman of Citizens Bank said that he was glad that this issue is behind us. The trust in banks has always been an issue since the Great Depression. When the stock market crashed in at the end of the 20s, people were left with no money, and were cheated out of any money they may have had. Banks in today’s economy clearly reflect that very same dishonesty that people faced in those days.

 Probing Question: What would you have done if you were being cheated by Citizen Bank? Do you think that the 137.5 million dollars was a harsh enough sentence for what the bank has done? Do you think other major banks across the country are also doing this?