Hobby Lobby asks Supreme Court for exemption to Obamacare mandate http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/10/hobby-lobby-asks-supreme-court-for-exemption-to-obamacare-mandate/
This article is interesting because Hobby Lobby wants to be exempted from providing contraceptive to their workers under the Affordable Care Act. The founders of Hobby Lobby are devoted Christians. Coming up March 25 in Sebelius V. Hobby Lobby will debate whether private organizations can have religious exemptions for Federal Laws. Honestly, the government shouldn't force this health bill down everyones throats, but then again most people practice many different types of religion, so should their beliefs exempt them from what everyone else has to go thru? Since I don't really support the Affordable Care Act should can I be exempt from it or could I be exempt from certain parts of it just to fit my specific needs? Nope. Plus, even if the founders are devoted Christians they can't force thier religious beliefs on their employees.
While I do agree with the idea of giving everyone who can't afford it healthcare, I don't agree with the government forcing it on everyone. The government shouldn't take it out of all America's pocket. They should make cuts in order to to pay for universal health care the way it should be: effective. Companies and group should not have the power to exempt certain things to their employers based on religion. Its not fair to be able to mold policy around certain beliefs, we should all be equal.
I agree that people that can't afford healthcare on their own, but work or at least try, should be given it. I don't agree though with the government forcing this new act upon Americans. Hobby Lobby may be devoted Christians and I think it wrong that they try and force their religion onto their employees, but it is their business and they will stick to those beliefs.
I agree that if the company and his founders don’t believe in something they should be forced to do it but I am sure that not every single worker at hobby lobby is a devoted Christian. The company could be fair and allow their devoted Christians opt out of the plan. This ultimately allows the non-Christians to receive the benefits that they need but can’t afford it.
That's like saying "aww man, but I love doing drugs! I know it's illegal but I really, really don't think it should be, so lemme just hit that totally awesome sweet alabama liquid snake!" I don't think anyone thought of this, but if one of those people don't believe in the use of contraceptives, they don't have to use what the government will provide under the act. I four for the Affordable Care Act. You go, Glenn Coco!
I agree with emily, I think that hobby lobby should not try to force a religion on its employees. If you cant afford it then at least try to pay for it, just because your not christian means you don't get the benefits? That does not seem so fair. We should all be equal
Yeah, just because the people behind the company are super religious doesn't mean its employees are. They should not be allowed to force their beliefs on their employees, and they shouldn't be exempt from health care benefits just because their employers are. Besides, if they're against using contraceptives, they don't have to be the ones who use them. They've got to think about the people who need them, but can't afford them.
I think that they shouldn't be exempt from it just because it against their religion maybe it's not how many of their employees feel or even just one employee. Under this act, even if I don't think it's right they should have the right to gain benefit from this government mandated program, that the whole country must abide by.
I think they should not be exempt from federal laws based on their religion. Now, if it was a government organization and if it was over something like age instead of religion, it would be more acceptable. The government can't favor one religion over the other, as we have established with the establishment clause.
U.S. expands same-sex marriage rights http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/08/politics/holder-same-sex-marriage-rights/index.html This article discusses how same-sex couples will have more rights towards federal matters. This includes bankruptcy, prison visits, and survivor benefits. This means that if a same-sex family is married in one state. They can file for bankruptcy in another state, regarding their gay marriage law. I think this is a great way for same-sex families to build and enjoy their life in the area of their choice without facing issues in these areas if they are faced with them.
I agree with Garrett, this country is changing for the better. I believe that married couples, whether they're straight or of the same sex, should have the same rights. America is suppose to be the country of freedom, and gays having the same rights economically shows that.
I agree as well. Same sex couples should have the same rights as any other couple. It isn't fair for the government to treat them differently. Many people have to file bankruptcy because they can't pay for their home on their own. That shouldn't be taken away from a couple just because of their sexuality.
If they are going to legalize same sex marriage why not make it equal? Why go through the whole trouble the law but cut it half short? People might still get married because they love each other without thinking about the benefits they won’t get but I think if you’re going to go head legalize it you might as well make it equal for everyone.
I agree too. Same sex couples should be able to have the same benefits as different sex marriages. It isnt fair for the government to treat them differently at all. Same sex marriages should be able to to live just like everyone else. Like bree said this country is changing for the better. America is freedom so we should be free to live how we wont without the government controlling us
Same sex couples should totally be allowed to have the same benefits as other couples. Like, that should be a no-brainer, and it's kind of astonishing that it's something people would have to debate. Like Emelia said, if you're going to legalize it, you might as well make it equal for everyone. Go hard or go home. They're the same as other couples, so they should get the same rights.
this is a huge step forward i think for gay rights. this is coming to show that this issue is moving forward. hopefully in the near future we will see even more improvements. Maybe even in our own state someday. we are only getting closer
This really helps the whole cause of allowing same-sex marriage because it is providing a sense of unity among the states to allow same-sex marriage. We as a country have been very progressive in allowing same-sex marriage in the last couple months and we can only hope to eventually have a completely equal society where anyone can be with anyone and are not discriminated against.
I think this is a great step in recognizing everyone's equality. The federal government is now recognizing same-sex marriage being somewhat legitimate and preserves their rights through to other dates that otherwise wouldn't. Maybe eventually all states will recognize same-sex marriage. And hopefully, this will lead to even more advancement in how our society recognizes other controversial issues considered to be "unequal" to us "normal" people.
This article is about the Senate passing a higher debt ceiling by a super majority. This ended with a long debate. Where republicans voted yes when they didn't want to, to end a filibuster. Republicans who are soon up for reelection had to vote yes to have a 60 vote threshold. This I believe is not the solution. Americans want to lower the debt ceiling but they also don't want to pay higher taxes. The solution is to fix the debt ceiling by raising taxes and then they wouldn't have to have these unnecessary votes on raising it all the time. http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/12/politics/senate-debt-ceiling/index.html?hpt=po_c2
It really is a ridiculous cycle, isn't it? The only President who has recently improved the United States debt ceiling was Bill Clinton, and he did a pretty awesome job of lowing it, but since then, the White House has done nothing BUT spend. Also, I think that there is no way to permanently get out of debt. Also, one thing that gets on my nerves is how people try to blame debt increases on the current President... Our debt is increasing from all the Presidents. Not just Obama, not just Bush, but even as far back as Reagan.
Ah, the age old dilemma. Taxpayers want better government programs, a lower debt ceiling AND less taxes. It doesn't work. You can get one but not the other. I wish that people would get that through their heads. I'm personally for raising taxes because it seems the benefits outweigh the literal cost but I've yet to pay taxes so I'll get back to you on that one haha
Honestly I get giving away your money to the government while not receiving any tangible rewards makes people not want to pay taxes (atleast thats what i've heard several of my parents friends say). Anyways thats dumb because taxes pay for like everything, the road and highway system is a good example of a tangible benefit, even if its congested as heck sometimes. Anyways with adding more government programs means the cost of upkeep raises, which means you need to generate more income to make things work. And no one in Congress wants to raise taxes because its bad publicity but frankly we cant keep raising the debt ceiling. Im surprised this has been able to keep going as long without someone stepping up.
I think the raising the debt ceiling is the farthest thing away from the solution to this mess. Congressmen should be more worried about making the country run right instead of just being re-elected. I get job secruity and all that but their job is not to keep their job, it is the help our country run. I think that the first thing we need to do is make the government smaller with less entitlement programs, and more economically stimulating programs. Taxes would have to be raised that for sure but once we reach the even threshold they can be lowered once again. People thing to much about the now and not enough about the after. Ron Paul 2016
Our politicians have to be able to make some hard choices instead of just raising the limit of their spending. Everyone in power wants to bring federal tax money back to their home district so they make people happy and get voted back into office. Maybe we should make them more accountable for the national well-being and not be so local focused. All the pet projects and un-necessary add ons to bills should be published as major news items to hold representatives accountable and make them explain why their project helps national needs.
This video is about Rand Paul suing the Obama administration over NSA surveillance. Rand says the NSA is infringing on American civil liberties and violates the Constitution. This I think is very irrelevant. The government is yes infringing, but it is for the greater good. Paul wants any records erased. If you are not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't care if the government is checking in with you to keep you safe. This is prevention. This is essential to the safety of the people and aiding in stopping cyber attacks. The courts tend to side with the administration anyway, so Paul making a big deal out of this is unnecessary and a waste of time. http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/politics/2014/02/12/exp-nr-vo-tapper-rand-paul-lawsuit.cnn.html
For situations like the NSA, i can always see both sides. I do think that Paul is overreacting a little and should not be suing the Obama situation for something that can eventually protect us from things like terrorism. This is just like going to the airport and getting "checked". Any person would not like this to happen, but it would be necessary to help any citizen when they get on a plane.
You both sound like the sheeple these guys want you to be.
Theres a reason every dictator ever has had an agency dedicated to spying on their own people. If you're cool with letting these guys see almost everything you do then I don't know why you're in America, a country founded on the belief that the government is there to protect and serve only. The government isn't there to watch every move you make to make sure you aren't gonna bomb downtown Columbus. The only reason this is okay in some people's minds is because of the wave of paranoia after 9/11. And frankly, 9/11 wasn't all it was cracked up to be.
Im not even gonna bring up the fourth amendment I'm gonna just stick to what should be common sense for people. And since everyones "outraged" about this NSA spying, but there still hasn't been any protests, it's definitely not about to stop anytime soon.
I also think that the NSA has gone to far. There should be no need to spy on all citizens. If we are smart enough to invent this kind of technology for capturing all this information, We should be better at figuring out who the real threats are and using the technology to target them, not just everyone at random. If a friend tells a really bad joke and you tell them "that is stupid, what are you smoking crack?"' they could suddenly have all kinds of government agencies watchuing them for no reason and wasting taxpayer dollars doing it. Watchdogs are needed to protect our basic liberties form government who thinks it is doing right but has taken an idea too far.
Okay, so I could not find an article about this, but apparently there was a lot of controversy about the Americas tilting their flag towards the Russian President in the opening ceremony of the Olympics this year. I am not quite sure what happened because I missed that part of the program, but I think that it would be exteremly rude for the Americans to disrespect the Russian President in that way. Someone told me that it was because homosexuals were not allowed to compete, but what would that have to do with the tilting of the flag? It isn't like the President was like "NO GAYS", I am pretty sure that homosexuals are not allowed to compete in the Olympics, no matter where it is taking place. I may be wrong though because like I said, I couldn't find an article.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/02/13/kansas_anti_gay_segregation_bill_is_an_abomination.html Also, I know I already made my two posts this week, but my friend just posted this monster on Facebook and I thought I'd share it with y'all.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/after-tense-vote-senate-oks-debt-limit-extension-n28721 Our Senate has voted and passed a bill that allows our debt ceiling to be raised until March 2015.It came after some pretty close voting with one vote being 67-31 and the other being 55-43. I believe our national government really needs to step up and tell the public we need to raise taxes so we can start to decrease our national debt so it all isn't left on our children in the future or find cuts somewhere else to lower our debt. This is a problem we can not constantly keep putting off.
I highly agree with this. I agree because America has been in debt for a really long time now and it just seems that the very high debt is not lowering to what it needs to be in the future, which is to where we should not be in debt. Like you said, it will end up affecting the future generations a lot. We should just get it over with now.
we really need to sort this out now. we are just raising and raising until eventually we are just going to shut down. we need to figure out how to make a budget and cut back on things that are not needed. we all need to get on the same side for our economy to prosper. but the likelyhood of that happening is slim to none,
I'm kind of on the fence here. I agree that something needs to be done, but let's face it. The US is always going to be in debt. Our nation is one that is run on debt and trust, trust that we will pay what we owe. The only reason the US will totally shutdown is if China stops buying our debt and nobody else will. While it is a major problem, I think it's safe to say that this debt isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/dems-hope-force-gop-minimum-wage-vote-n29926 Our House Democrats are pushing for a discharge petition in the next several weeks to begin legislation that would allow our national minimum wage to be raise to $10.10 an hour.While they may not have enough votes to bring it to the floor it will be a Democratic talking point for the upcoming November elections. After reading an article about raising the national minimum wage in another class I'm hoping that our national economy would be able to handle the increase in payment to everyone below the $10.10 per hour standard they are proposing.
The government is approving loans for the building of a new nuclear power plant. It's the first in over 3 decades. Many people are against this because of how unsafe these power plants can be. But many people are for this because the power plants do not leave a great carbon footprint like many other sources of power.
Hobby Lobby asks Supreme Court for exemption to Obamacare mandate
ReplyDeletehttp://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/10/hobby-lobby-asks-supreme-court-for-exemption-to-obamacare-mandate/
This article is interesting because Hobby Lobby wants to be exempted from providing contraceptive to their workers under the Affordable Care Act. The founders of Hobby Lobby are devoted Christians. Coming up March 25 in Sebelius V. Hobby Lobby will debate whether private organizations can have religious exemptions for Federal Laws. Honestly, the government shouldn't force this health bill down everyones throats, but then again most people practice many different types of religion, so should their beliefs exempt them from what everyone else has to go thru? Since I don't really support the Affordable Care Act should can I be exempt from it or could I be exempt from certain parts of it just to fit my specific needs? Nope. Plus, even if the founders are devoted Christians they can't force thier religious beliefs on their employees.
While I do agree with the idea of giving everyone who can't afford it healthcare, I don't agree with the government forcing it on everyone. The government shouldn't take it out of all America's pocket. They should make cuts in order to to pay for universal health care the way it should be: effective. Companies and group should not have the power to exempt certain things to their employers based on religion. Its not fair to be able to mold policy around certain beliefs, we should all be equal.
DeleteI agree that people that can't afford healthcare on their own, but work or at least try, should be given it. I don't agree though with the government forcing this new act upon Americans. Hobby Lobby may be devoted Christians and I think it wrong that they try and force their religion onto their employees, but it is their business and they will stick to those beliefs.
DeleteI agree that if the company and his founders don’t believe in something they should be forced to do it but I am sure that not every single worker at hobby lobby is a devoted Christian. The company could be fair and allow their devoted Christians opt out of the plan. This ultimately allows the non-Christians to receive the benefits that they need but can’t afford it.
DeleteThat's like saying "aww man, but I love doing drugs! I know it's illegal but I really, really don't think it should be, so lemme just hit that totally awesome sweet alabama liquid snake!" I don't think anyone thought of this, but if one of those people don't believe in the use of contraceptives, they don't have to use what the government will provide under the act. I four for the Affordable Care Act. You go, Glenn Coco!
DeleteI agree with emily, I think that hobby lobby should not try to force a religion on its employees. If you cant afford it then at least try to pay for it, just because your not christian means you don't get the benefits? That does not seem so fair. We should all be equal
DeleteYeah, just because the people behind the company are super religious doesn't mean its employees are. They should not be allowed to force their beliefs on their employees, and they shouldn't be exempt from health care benefits just because their employers are. Besides, if they're against using contraceptives, they don't have to be the ones who use them. They've got to think about the people who need them, but can't afford them.
DeleteI think that they shouldn't be exempt from it just because it against their religion maybe it's not how many of their employees feel or even just one employee. Under this act, even if I don't think it's right they should have the right to gain benefit from this government mandated program, that the whole country must abide by.
DeleteI think they should not be exempt from federal laws based on their religion. Now, if it was a government organization and if it was over something like age instead of religion, it would be more acceptable. The government can't favor one religion over the other, as we have established with the establishment clause.
DeleteU.S. expands same-sex marriage rights
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/2014/02/08/politics/holder-same-sex-marriage-rights/index.html
This article discusses how same-sex couples will have more rights towards federal matters. This includes bankruptcy, prison visits, and survivor benefits. This means that if a same-sex family is married in one state. They can file for bankruptcy in another state, regarding their gay marriage law. I think this is a great way for same-sex families to build and enjoy their life in the area of their choice without facing issues in these areas if they are faced with them.
I agree with Garrett, this country is changing for the better. I believe that married couples, whether they're straight or of the same sex, should have the same rights. America is suppose to be the country of freedom, and gays having the same rights economically shows that.
DeleteI agree as well. Same sex couples should have the same rights as any other couple. It isn't fair for the government to treat them differently. Many people have to file bankruptcy because they can't pay for their home on their own. That shouldn't be taken away from a couple just because of their sexuality.
DeleteIf they are going to legalize same sex marriage why not make it equal? Why go through the whole trouble the law but cut it half short? People might still get married because they love each other without thinking about the benefits they won’t get but I think if you’re going to go head legalize it you might as well make it equal for everyone.
DeleteI agree too. Same sex couples should be able to have the same benefits as different sex marriages. It isnt fair for the government to treat them differently at all. Same sex marriages should be able to to live just like everyone else. Like bree said this country is changing for the better. America is freedom so we should be free to live how we wont without the government controlling us
DeleteSame sex couples should totally be allowed to have the same benefits as other couples. Like, that should be a no-brainer, and it's kind of astonishing that it's something people would have to debate. Like Emelia said, if you're going to legalize it, you might as well make it equal for everyone. Go hard or go home. They're the same as other couples, so they should get the same rights.
Deletethis is a huge step forward i think for gay rights. this is coming to show that this issue is moving forward. hopefully in the near future we will see even more improvements. Maybe even in our own state someday. we are only getting closer
DeleteThis really helps the whole cause of allowing same-sex marriage because it is providing a sense of unity among the states to allow same-sex marriage. We as a country have been very progressive in allowing same-sex marriage in the last couple months and we can only hope to eventually have a completely equal society where anyone can be with anyone and are not discriminated against.
DeleteI think this is a great step in recognizing everyone's equality. The federal government is now recognizing same-sex marriage being somewhat legitimate and preserves their rights through to other dates that otherwise wouldn't. Maybe eventually all states will recognize same-sex marriage. And hopefully, this will lead to even more advancement in how our society recognizes other controversial issues considered to be "unequal" to us "normal" people.
DeleteThis article is about the Senate passing a higher debt ceiling by a super majority. This ended with a long debate. Where republicans voted yes when they didn't want to, to end a filibuster. Republicans who are soon up for reelection had to vote yes to have a 60 vote threshold. This I believe is not the solution. Americans want to lower the debt ceiling but they also don't want to pay higher taxes. The solution is to fix the debt ceiling by raising taxes and then they wouldn't have to have these unnecessary votes on raising it all the time.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/2014/02/12/politics/senate-debt-ceiling/index.html?hpt=po_c2
It really is a ridiculous cycle, isn't it? The only President who has recently improved the United States debt ceiling was Bill Clinton, and he did a pretty awesome job of lowing it, but since then, the White House has done nothing BUT spend. Also, I think that there is no way to permanently get out of debt.
DeleteAlso, one thing that gets on my nerves is how people try to blame debt increases on the current President... Our debt is increasing from all the Presidents. Not just Obama, not just Bush, but even as far back as Reagan.
Ah, the age old dilemma. Taxpayers want better government programs, a lower debt ceiling AND less taxes. It doesn't work. You can get one but not the other. I wish that people would get that through their heads. I'm personally for raising taxes because it seems the benefits outweigh the literal cost but I've yet to pay taxes so I'll get back to you on that one haha
DeleteHonestly I get giving away your money to the government while not receiving any tangible rewards makes people not want to pay taxes (atleast thats what i've heard several of my parents friends say). Anyways thats dumb because taxes pay for like everything, the road and highway system is a good example of a tangible benefit, even if its congested as heck sometimes. Anyways with adding more government programs means the cost of upkeep raises, which means you need to generate more income to make things work. And no one in Congress wants to raise taxes because its bad publicity but frankly we cant keep raising the debt ceiling. Im surprised this has been able to keep going as long without someone stepping up.
DeleteI think the raising the debt ceiling is the farthest thing away from the solution to this mess. Congressmen should be more worried about making the country run right instead of just being re-elected. I get job secruity and all that but their job is not to keep their job, it is the help our country run. I think that the first thing we need to do is make the government smaller with less entitlement programs, and more economically stimulating programs. Taxes would have to be raised that for sure but once we reach the even threshold they can be lowered once again. People thing to much about the now and not enough about the after. Ron Paul 2016
DeleteOur politicians have to be able to make some hard choices instead of just raising the limit of their spending. Everyone in power wants to bring federal tax money back to their home district so they make people happy and get voted back into office. Maybe we should make them more accountable for the national well-being and not be so local focused. All the pet projects and un-necessary add ons to bills should be published as major news items to hold representatives accountable and make them explain why their project helps national needs.
DeleteThis video is about Rand Paul suing the Obama administration over NSA surveillance. Rand says the NSA is infringing on American civil liberties and violates the Constitution. This I think is very irrelevant. The government is yes infringing, but it is for the greater good. Paul wants any records erased. If you are not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't care if the government is checking in with you to keep you safe. This is prevention. This is essential to the safety of the people and aiding in stopping cyber attacks. The courts tend to side with the administration anyway, so Paul making a big deal out of this is unnecessary and a waste of time.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/politics/2014/02/12/exp-nr-vo-tapper-rand-paul-lawsuit.cnn.html
For situations like the NSA, i can always see both sides. I do think that Paul is overreacting a little and should not be suing the Obama situation for something that can eventually protect us from things like terrorism. This is just like going to the airport and getting "checked". Any person would not like this to happen, but it would be necessary to help any citizen when they get on a plane.
DeleteYou both sound like the sheeple these guys want you to be.
DeleteTheres a reason every dictator ever has had an agency dedicated to spying on their own people. If you're cool with letting these guys see almost everything you do then I don't know why you're in America, a country founded on the belief that the government is there to protect and serve only. The government isn't there to watch every move you make to make sure you aren't gonna bomb downtown Columbus. The only reason this is okay in some people's minds is because of the wave of paranoia after 9/11. And frankly, 9/11 wasn't all it was cracked up to be.
Im not even gonna bring up the fourth amendment I'm gonna just stick to what should be common sense for people. And since everyones "outraged" about this NSA spying, but there still hasn't been any protests, it's definitely not about to stop anytime soon.
I also think that the NSA has gone to far. There should be no need to spy on all citizens. If we are smart enough to invent this kind of technology for capturing all this information, We should be better at figuring out who the real threats are and using the technology to target them, not just everyone at random. If a friend tells a really bad joke and you tell them "that is stupid, what are you smoking crack?"' they could suddenly have all kinds of government agencies watchuing them for no reason and wasting taxpayer dollars doing it. Watchdogs are needed to protect our basic liberties form government who thinks it is doing right but has taken an idea too far.
DeleteOkay, so I could not find an article about this, but apparently there was a lot of controversy about the Americas tilting their flag towards the Russian President in the opening ceremony of the Olympics this year. I am not quite sure what happened because I missed that part of the program, but I think that it would be exteremly rude for the Americans to disrespect the Russian President in that way.
ReplyDeleteSomeone told me that it was because homosexuals were not allowed to compete, but what would that have to do with the tilting of the flag? It isn't like the President was like "NO GAYS", I am pretty sure that homosexuals are not allowed to compete in the Olympics, no matter where it is taking place. I may be wrong though because like I said, I couldn't find an article.
Nah, there are openly gay athletes in the Olympics! There isn't like, a bountiful harvest of gays, but there are a few sprinkled in, here and there.
Deletehttp://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/02/13/kansas_anti_gay_segregation_bill_is_an_abomination.html
ReplyDeleteAlso, I know I already made my two posts this week, but my friend just posted this monster on Facebook and I thought I'd share it with y'all.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/after-tense-vote-senate-oks-debt-limit-extension-n28721
ReplyDeleteOur Senate has voted and passed a bill that allows our debt ceiling to be raised until March 2015.It came after some pretty close voting with one vote being 67-31 and the other being 55-43. I believe our national government really needs to step up and tell the public we need to raise taxes so we can start to decrease our national debt so it all isn't left on our children in the future or find cuts somewhere else to lower our debt. This is a problem we can not constantly keep putting off.
I highly agree with this. I agree because America has been in debt for a really long time now and it just seems that the very high debt is not lowering to what it needs to be in the future, which is to where we should not be in debt. Like you said, it will end up affecting the future generations a lot. We should just get it over with now.
Deletewe really need to sort this out now. we are just raising and raising until eventually we are just going to shut down. we need to figure out how to make a budget and cut back on things that are not needed. we all need to get on the same side for our economy to prosper. but the likelyhood of that happening is slim to none,
DeleteI'm kind of on the fence here. I agree that something needs to be done, but let's face it. The US is always going to be in debt. Our nation is one that is run on debt and trust, trust that we will pay what we owe. The only reason the US will totally shutdown is if China stops buying our debt and nobody else will. While it is a major problem, I think it's safe to say that this debt isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
Deletehttp://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/dems-hope-force-gop-minimum-wage-vote-n29926
ReplyDeleteOur House Democrats are pushing for a discharge petition in the next several weeks to begin legislation that would allow our national minimum wage to be raise to $10.10 an hour.While they may not have enough votes to bring it to the floor it will be a Democratic talking point for the upcoming November elections. After reading an article about raising the national minimum wage in another class I'm hoping that our national economy would be able to handle the increase in payment to everyone below the $10.10 per hour standard they are proposing.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/02/19/279630881/u-s-government-will-back-loans-for-nuclear-power
ReplyDeleteThe government is approving loans for the building of a new nuclear power plant. It's the first in over 3 decades. Many people are against this because of how unsafe these power plants can be. But many people are for this because the power plants do not leave a great carbon footprint like many other sources of power.