This blog is a place for us to give our Analysis and Opinions on important topics related to civics, government and politics.
Analysis is a clinical interpretation of items, issues, ideas, or events and an explanation of their impact on the future (i.e. something you think is going to happen).
Opinion is composed of your reactions, feelings, and beliefs on items, issues, ideas or events (i.e. something you would like to happen). Even though they are your opinions, they should be based in fact.
Sunday, February 09, 2014
Please comment on somebody's post you disagree with or have a question about from 11-17-13 through today.
Remember that everything you post on the internet can be seen by everyone, everywhere, forever.
(the article I'm commenting on is How Congress Became the Most Polarized and Unproductive it's Ever Been)
The question that I have about the article is in regards to the last paragraph or so. The author says that the reason Congress is unproductive, etc., is due to the people that are elected. He goes on to state that to prevent this inefficiency, different people need to be elected. What I'm wondering is if there is some sort of training that is given to senators and representatives. I know that almost all of them move up from a smaller county office or the like, but this is so much more responsibility. Is there a "shadow day" for senators? Do representatives get some sort of crash course? Because I'd think that learning more compromising skills may help these problems.
Kelsey, every new member gets some orientation time before casting their first votes. That is mostly about rules of their chamber, and protocols. The rest of their "training" would come from other members they trust who are usually from their own party. Bottom line is that each member can choose to listen (or not listen) to whoever they choose. Not sure trainings in compromise would work. Bottom, bottom line: all members worry about getting re-elected...so it's about the voters.
In the article "How Congress Became the Most Polarized and Unproductive its Ever Been," I don't necessarily agree with his reasons behind the gridlock. Yes, the majority are probably trying to do what they think or know the people want, but I have a feeling that they also focus a lot on what the party as a whole wants. I'm not sure if this is the case, but it seems members are more concerned on voting in accordance to their party rather than the people.
I'm commenting on "Postal bill clears Senate committee". The article states that the postal service will move to deliver 5 days a week instead of the usual 6. This will save money because they don't have to pay workers because they are not working. But then the article says that they will raise postage rates. Already people are doing everything online communicating. They can also get coupons online, and pay their bills online, the newspaper is online. There is not a huge need for the postal service if everything is electronic. My question is, if the postal service wants to make more money and keep it in use, why raise the price and drive away people? To me it just seems counter productive. Yeah they are saving money by laying off people but by hiking the prices they will drive more people way, and there will be less demand for postage, so they will have to fire people and they cycle continues. Hopefully some of the above ^^ makes sense but at the same time I am thoroughly confused.
I disagree with Justin Jezuits post from December 15th. He thought that the budget deal was good for the economy, and congress so that the government can carry on. The budget deal did get the Government up an d running, however it allows the country to raise the debt. Debt that in the future we will have to pay off. How will we pay off the debt? No one really nows, which was the problem that the country had before the government shutdown. Until there is a solid plan with important cutbacks in spending, Americas debt will continue to rise.
I think junk mail employs a lot of people in America, and it would cause a lot of chaos in our economy if the postal office discontinued it and stopped delivery. If we were to charge $1, a higher rate calls for less users which ultimately ends up in a way to eliminate USPS all together.. Which is what republicans "want."
I agree with Ben, the budget deal is pretty much a deal to push the deadline of making an official decision on digging out of the hole we have made ourselves with our debt. Also, this has happened before. We keep pushing the deadline with no real solutions. It will be interesting when it comes to the point of having no make the decision now or not
I disagree with Jacob Arndts post on December 9. He said that we need elected officials who dig in their heals, but I feel that we need elected officials who are deal makers. The reasoning for this is that if we have elected officials who dig in their heels, then no compromise would be made and nothing would be moving forward. Disputing would continue and less progress would be made. With deal makers, progress would be made and compromises would have to occur.
I read about Comittee work. Junk mail, annoying as is, is necessary because it imploys a decent amount of citizens. Increases in price & expoltion of junk mail altogether while result in the same thing: less jobs, no junk mail.
I read the article "How Congress Became the Most polarized and Unproductive its Ever Been". I disagree with the reasons behind the gridlock because I feel like the majority are not taking into account the public's opinion and are doing things all for party lines.
Regarding the article titled "How Congress Became the Most Polarized and Unproductive its Ever Been," I don't agree with the reasoning for a gridlock. I feel that the ideas and opinions of the public are ignored even though they could be beneficial.
I disagree with Tom Schneider's comment on February 9th.
I wouldn't say "majority" of congress does what is right for society. Instead they rather think about only the present and not their consequences from their actions.
In the article "Postal Bill Clears Senate Committee" it states that they will be saving money because they are only going to deliver mail 5 days a week. I disagree with this because they also talk about how they are going to raise the price of postage. So many people, companies, corporations, etc. have already switched to doing all of their mail, bills, and such online. I think this will only hinder the post offices and that eventually mail will become totally obsolete, but before then the post office will go bankrupt, in my opinion. I think that no matter what they try to do, mail is a dying field and eventually will fail.
I agree with jack, we don't need elected officials that dig their heels because nothing will happen.By having a deal makers we will be able to move more quickly ahead instead of waiting. Arguing just wastes time and no progress will be made. The deal makers will improve the progress made and move things forward faster.
After reading the Committee work i think that we should get rid of junk mail because no one usually reads it anyways. However, the delivery of junk mail does increase jobs for people and therefore this is important for our economy. If we get rid of junk mail then we would have to increase postage.
In opposition to Jessica's comment, I believe we need junk mail. In an economy that is struggling to keep people employed, cutting out a major contributor to jobs/employment would be an unwise thing to do currently. Even if the "junk mail" is annoying, it would be worse to have more citizens out of a job. Isn't recycling some papers a worthy alternative to unemployment?
Like Kelsee, I also disagree with Jessica. While "junk mail" may be undesirable, it is currently necessary to maintain the economy. By removing its distribution completely, unemployment rates will plummet, as it increases the amount of jobs available to Americans. At this point in time, I don't think the annoyance of unnecessary mail triumphs over our nation's need for a somewhat steady economy.
My question is regarding the Legislative Committees deliberating on the 5 day a week postal service. Is this part of a larger bill attempting to bring down debt or a bill in it of itself? Also, are the committees involved part of the Congress's legislative process i.e. standing or rules committee or are they more of public interest groups? Personally, even though it seems like a very minute issue when compared to Homeland security and the economy, it still effects people's livelihoods and employment rate.
The gridlock article was interesting to me for many reasons. Since unemployment benefits last for 100 weeks (I think), which is almost two years, adding an additional 12 weeks almost seems to be a greater detriment to our nation’s debt rather than helping the unemployed. 100 weeks is almost two years which seems to be a good chunk of time to find a new job. Being unemployed means one should be looking aggressively to find a job rather than taking the 100 week unemployment benefits as a two year retirement. Again, I’m not sure that adding 12 more weeks to the unemployment benefits will help the unemployed that much that it’s worth the nation spending “6.4 billion” which we technically do not have.
I agree with Jessica Klamecki's post that we should get rid of the junk mail because most people do not read it anyways. Although, at the same time the junk mail is important to our economy. So if we were to get rid of it we could have other problems.
The article I am commenting on is “Senate hits another dead end on unemployment benefits.”
The expectations Senator Jack Reed (D-R.I.) has of those who oppose the bill that proposes renewed benefits to the unemployed are unreasonable and I do not agree with his rationale. Reid is refusing to offer the minority amendments unless they pre-emptively guarantee that the bill will ultimately be approved, as currently written. For this reason, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is keeping the opposition strong, part of the reason for the gridlock. Personally, I believe that any needed changes should be made to the bill itself before it is passed, not passed under the presumption that any needed amendments will be added to sooth the opposition. For me, this raises the question: Is this a common practice to want to pass bills as they are, knowing that they will require a large number of amendments anyway?
Committee Work (For 2/3-2/9): I don't agree with reducing the number of days that mail is delivered and hiking up rates. While this may in turn help bring the postal service out of debt, it will ultimately end up raising the US unemployment rate substantially. There has to be some way to compromise, without compromising millions of jobs.
I am disagreeing with Kelsey Cybell's comment about compromising skills becoming what is necessary to Congress becoming more progressive and apt to compromise. The Congress was designed this way to protect the American people from a government that was too progressive. This method allows for a strenuous process of new laws and amendments being put in place in order for basic values of the Founders in which the Constitution was written.
I disagree with Jacob Arnts comment on Dec 9 about policy members needing to dig their heels in. I think we shouldnt vote for these people and we should vote for more deal makers. That way we will be actually able to make deals and compromise within reasonable time.
26 comments:
(the article I'm commenting on is How Congress Became the Most Polarized and Unproductive it's Ever Been)
The question that I have about the article is in regards to the last paragraph or so. The author says that the reason Congress is unproductive, etc., is due to the people that are elected. He goes on to state that to prevent this inefficiency, different people need to be elected. What I'm wondering is if there is some sort of training that is given to senators and representatives. I know that almost all of them move up from a smaller county office or the like, but this is so much more responsibility. Is there a "shadow day" for senators? Do representatives get some sort of crash course? Because I'd think that learning more compromising skills may help these problems.
Kelsey, every new member gets some orientation time before casting their first votes. That is mostly about rules of their chamber, and protocols. The rest of their "training" would come from other members they trust who are usually from their own party. Bottom line is that each member can choose to listen (or not listen) to whoever they choose. Not sure trainings in compromise would work. Bottom, bottom line: all members worry about getting re-elected...so it's about the voters.
In the article "How Congress Became the Most Polarized and Unproductive its Ever Been," I don't necessarily agree with his reasons behind the gridlock. Yes, the majority are probably trying to do what they think or know the people want, but I have a feeling that they also focus a lot on what the party as a whole wants. I'm not sure if this is the case, but it seems members are more concerned on voting in accordance to their party rather than the people.
I'm commenting on "Postal bill clears Senate committee". The article states that the postal service will move to deliver 5 days a week instead of the usual 6. This will save money because they don't have to pay workers because they are not working. But then the article says that they will raise postage rates. Already people are doing everything online communicating. They can also get coupons online, and pay their bills online, the newspaper is online. There is not a huge need for the postal service if everything is electronic. My question is, if the postal service wants to make more money and keep it in use, why raise the price and drive away people? To me it just seems counter productive. Yeah they are saving money by laying off people but by hiking the prices they will drive more people way, and there will be less demand for postage, so they will have to fire people and they cycle continues. Hopefully some of the above ^^ makes sense but at the same time I am thoroughly confused.
I disagree with Justin Jezuits post from December 15th. He thought that the budget deal was good for the economy, and congress so that the government can carry on. The budget deal did get the Government up an d running, however it allows the country to raise the debt. Debt that in the future we will have to pay off. How will we pay off the debt? No one really nows, which was the problem that the country had before the government shutdown. Until there is a solid plan with important cutbacks in spending, Americas debt will continue to rise.
Committee work-
I think junk mail employs a lot of people in America, and it would cause a lot of chaos in our economy if the postal office discontinued it and stopped delivery. If we were to charge $1, a higher rate calls for less users which ultimately ends up in a way to eliminate USPS all together.. Which is what republicans "want."
I agree with Ben, the budget deal is pretty much a deal to push the deadline of making an official decision on digging out of the hole we have made ourselves with our debt. Also, this has happened before. We keep pushing the deadline with no real solutions. It will be interesting when it comes to the point of having no make the decision now or not
I disagree with Jacob Arndts post on December 9. He said that we need elected officials who dig in their heals, but I feel that we need elected officials who are deal makers. The reasoning for this is that if we have elected officials who dig in their heels, then no compromise would be made and nothing would be moving forward. Disputing would continue and less progress would be made. With deal makers, progress would be made and compromises would have to occur.
I read about Comittee work. Junk mail, annoying as is, is necessary because it imploys a decent amount of citizens. Increases in price & expoltion of junk mail altogether while result in the same thing: less jobs, no junk mail.
I read the article "How Congress Became the Most polarized and Unproductive its Ever Been". I disagree with the reasons behind the gridlock because I feel like the majority are not taking into account the public's opinion and are doing things all for party lines.
Regarding the article titled "How Congress Became the Most Polarized and Unproductive its Ever Been," I don't agree with the reasoning for a gridlock. I feel that the ideas and opinions of the public are ignored even though they could be beneficial.
I disagree with Tom Schneider's comment on February 9th.
I wouldn't say "majority" of congress does what is right for society. Instead they rather think about only the present and not their consequences from their actions.
In the article "Postal Bill Clears Senate Committee" it states that they will be saving money because they are only going to deliver mail 5 days a week. I disagree with this because they also talk about how they are going to raise the price of postage. So many people, companies, corporations, etc. have already switched to doing all of their mail, bills, and such online. I think this will only hinder the post offices and that eventually mail will become totally obsolete, but before then the post office will go bankrupt, in my opinion. I think that no matter what they try to do, mail is a dying field and eventually will fail.
I agree with jack, we don't need elected officials that dig their heels because nothing will happen.By having a deal makers we will be able to move more quickly ahead instead of waiting. Arguing just wastes time and no progress will be made. The deal makers will improve the progress made and move things forward faster.
After reading the Committee work i think that we should get rid of junk mail because no one usually reads it anyways. However, the delivery of junk mail does increase jobs for people and therefore this is important for our economy. If we get rid of junk mail then we would have to increase postage.
In opposition to Jessica's comment, I believe we need junk mail. In an economy that is struggling to keep people employed, cutting out a major contributor to jobs/employment would be an unwise thing to do currently. Even if the "junk mail" is annoying, it would be worse to have more citizens out of a job. Isn't recycling some papers a worthy alternative to unemployment?
Like Kelsee, I also disagree with Jessica. While "junk mail" may be undesirable, it is currently necessary to maintain the economy. By removing its distribution completely, unemployment rates will plummet, as it increases the amount of jobs available to Americans. At this point in time, I don't think the annoyance of unnecessary mail triumphs over our nation's need for a somewhat steady economy.
My question is regarding the Legislative Committees deliberating on the 5 day a week postal service. Is this part of a larger bill attempting to bring down debt or a bill in it of itself? Also, are the committees involved part of the Congress's legislative process i.e. standing or rules committee or are they more of public interest groups? Personally, even though it seems like a very minute issue when compared to Homeland security and the economy, it still effects people's livelihoods and employment rate.
The gridlock article was interesting to me for many reasons. Since unemployment benefits last for 100 weeks (I think), which is almost two years, adding an additional 12 weeks almost seems to be a greater detriment to our nation’s debt rather than helping the unemployed. 100 weeks is almost two years which seems to be a good chunk of time to find a new job. Being unemployed means one should be looking aggressively to find a job rather than taking the 100 week unemployment benefits as a two year retirement. Again, I’m not sure that adding 12 more weeks to the unemployment benefits will help the unemployed that much that it’s worth the nation spending “6.4 billion” which we technically do not have.
I agree with Jessica Klamecki's post that we should get rid of the junk mail because most people do not read it anyways. Although, at the same time the junk mail is important to our economy. So if we were to get rid of it we could have other problems.
The article I am commenting on is “Senate hits another dead end on unemployment benefits.”
The expectations Senator Jack Reed (D-R.I.) has of those who oppose the bill that proposes renewed benefits to the unemployed are unreasonable and I do not agree with his rationale. Reid is refusing to offer the minority amendments unless they pre-emptively guarantee that the bill will ultimately be approved, as currently written. For this reason, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is keeping the opposition strong, part of the reason for the gridlock. Personally, I believe that any needed changes should be made to the bill itself before it is passed, not passed under the presumption that any needed amendments will be added to sooth the opposition. For me, this raises the question: Is this a common practice to want to pass bills as they are, knowing that they will require a large number of amendments anyway?
Committee Work (For 2/3-2/9): I don't agree with reducing the number of days that mail is delivered and hiking up rates. While this may in turn help bring the postal service out of debt, it will ultimately end up raising the US unemployment rate substantially. There has to be some way to compromise, without compromising millions of jobs.
Committee Work (For 2/3-2/9): Here is some additional information about the proposed bill and what is all entailed with it:
http://goo.gl/76YDeR
I am disagreeing with Kelsey Cybell's comment about compromising skills becoming what is necessary to Congress becoming more progressive and apt to compromise. The Congress was designed this way to protect the American people from a government that was too progressive. This method allows for a strenuous process of new laws and amendments being put in place in order for basic values of the Founders in which the Constitution was written.
I disagree with Jacob Arnts comment on Dec 9 about policy members needing to dig their heels in. I think we shouldnt vote for these people and we should vote for more deal makers. That way we will be actually able to make deals and compromise within reasonable time.
Post a Comment