Friday, March 12, 2010
Week of 15 March
Please post all of your comments for the week listed under this post. I won't go out of my way to find your postings. Also, I'll type comments as the opportunity arises, so look for them and feel free to comment back and argue with me. A few of you are using this forum wisely and a few are not. Right now I care that you get into the habit of using this blog to share ideas, but if your ideas never progress beyond the point of, "...good point, Johnny. I never would have thought of that! OMG LOLZ ;) ;)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! you won't do well here. Remember, we are doing this both to help you test ideas and to keep track of the effort you are making.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Neil
ReplyDeleteBalance the Budget
Mr. J,
I thought about what you wrote and reread the article. I found that the unemployment benefits that the government will give is not 10 Billion. It is 130 Billion. The 65% of health insurance subsidy that government will pay for the unemployed under the COBRA plan is the 10 Billion. The total money added to the deficit over the next year and a half will be 130 Billion, which may not seem like much, but will not help balancing the budget, but raise trhe deficit. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Also, I looked up Keynesian economics. It definitely helped me understand the Keynesian theory of the Great Depression and its cure.
For Haddon,
Thanks for the feedback, but aren't all plans flawed. Cutting spending will help balanced the budget (as you agreed). However I am already using your argument for the opposite side. I am saying that we have to raise government spending in order "prime the pump". Then people will spend more and cause circulation of the economy.
Finally, this is not a criticism but a guide for Haddon and Bryan. I found an article worth looking at:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124632206
Haddon Antonucci
ReplyDeleteCurrent Event Blog
AS said in my last post, I am looking into cases of CEO corruption for my Pro side. Thankyou to Neil for posting the site that he did. That could give evidence of how CEOs may be beneficial for the company and help it. To elaborate on the case I found last time of CEO corruption. It happened quite recently. The CEO and Vice President of a major Construction company were found to have faked tests on cement and metal on several major buildings, such as Yankee stadium and a new terminal in JFK airport. That is one of my arguments for pro. this will tie in with the people lower in rank being paid barely enough to survive. People who need the money deserve it just as much as someone who is not a neccassarily responsible. I realize this argument is flawed, and I want you guys to rip it apart to help me see a better argument. For both of them right now I am using comparison reasoning, by comparing them to a real-life object, but I am pretty sure i am going to change that soon
Alex
ReplyDeleteHealth care
I was looking at the health care plan that Obama plans to pass soon:
(from http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/HealthCare/obama-health-care-plan-fixes-senate-bill-public-option-insurance-reform/story?id=9908361)
- it would give (max.) $8500 to family of 4 who can't afford it
- prevents insurers from denying coverage
- tax credits to help small bussinesses
- improve quality of Medicare
- insuring that reform is fully paid for
the site also said that it's going to be passed without Republican support; they are going to put it through the senate (the senate bill) and put it through reconciliation rules -this requires only 51 votes.
If the senate passes it, the bill will go to the house.
Mr. J,
I was looking at the website you posted for health care, and while I was reading it, I was just thinking that (from what the person said) it looked like every president that dealt with health care was focusing on one or two things. It seemed they weren't concerned with everbody's health care. Take now, for example, Obama is focusing really on individuals and small bussinesses. I don't know, but it seems their focus should be broader. (For my debate, do you think I could say that the bill can't be passed yet because it doesn't include enough, yet) Any ideas?
Emily:
It seems that you are having trouble with con. I know how you don't want to say Republicans are too blame, so say both of them are (Demo and Repub) and give a couple examples.
I think that with this debate, it could be difficult not to mke hard generalizations (like "every democratic president has done something wrong" or "every repub. president has been right") Try not to do that.
For Con: I would suggest that you say democrates are to blame and so are republicans. I know you will have enough examples for democrates, just don't go over board and leave the wrongs of republicans for your last two sentences. When you're giving your republican examples, make it sound as bad as when you said your democratic examples. (make it look like they're even in the country's misfortune). One example you could give would be Bush. But just a couple from Bush. I know that you might think that he could be a great example for your WHOLE republican part of con- you know, since every democrate doesn't like him - but also include other republicans as well. If you don't, that goes back to a hard generalization.
OK, that's all I'm going to write.
Bye
@Alec(re your post of last week) I am pleased that you are finding good sources, but I find it disturbing that I have not seen any ideas posted under your name. A little more analysis would help.
ReplyDeleteRe: Alex's excellent comments --Also to Emily and Eva. The "Democrats are to blame" debate should start with a detailed analysis of what is wrong with contemporary America. Once you identify the problems, assigning the blame is pretty easy.
ReplyDeleteby Alec Arena:Healthcare
ReplyDeletei found a good con soucre not to out of date halloween of 2009 saying TOP 10 REASONS TO OPPOSE NANCY PELOSI’S TAKEOVER OF HEALTH CARE. the top ten reasons are
1. America cannot afford Speaker Pelosi’s proposal
2. Your taxes will go up
3. Your insurance premiums will go up
4. Congress will use the force of government to make you buy a product
5. Mandating health insurance is unconstitutional
6. The House reform bill hurts consumers and employees
7. The Pelosi proposal hurts seniors
8. Like the bill that failed in the Senate, House Democrats will try to pass a misleading “Doc Fix”—or health care spending bill—as a precursor to the House bill in an attempt preserve its “deficit neutral” status
9. The House bill is massive
10. With the Pelosi plan, Democrats miss an opportunity to incorporate reforms that make health care more accesible and more affordable for American families.
so this article helps me see how the health care is bad and how it would be a bad idea to pass it so that will deffenatly be included in my CON outline.
Mr.J thanks but i dont know what you mean by ideas
Alex i like your points and facts you said i think this is going to be a good debate between the two of us and make the best one win good luck
I also think that some more people need to post soon its already thursday tomorow
Emily Mae Kaplitz
ReplyDeleteFor Con
I took Alex's and I said democrates are to blame and so are republicans. I Added evidence to what Republicans are to blame for the gov. I also gave as bad examples for Republicans I make it sound as bad as my Demarcates. One example is Bush. But just a couple from Bush. I made him sound bad but it was very hard. So now it does not sound like a hard generalization.
I am still having trouble with evidence. Mr. J HELP!
Alex
I think you should put in percentages. I also think that you should answer this 1 question " How is Obama Helping this??
"War in Afghanistan"
ReplyDeleteMorgan Falasca
I took in mind my last weeks question about, "if we remove the troops from Afghanistan too quickly, will that cause another 9/11?" I didn't find many sources but the thing I did was from a blog website that I'm not too sure if I could trust it. Regardless, it brought some new ideas to my mind (that Haddon also brought up)... it maybe possible that if the al-Qaeda's aren't in Afhganistan anymore, they may attack U.S. I believe that on this blog- that was a valid question. This makes sense and to me, that sounds very reasonable. If we don't know where the al-Qaeda's are (as said by the military and TIME Magazine), how do we know that they aren't back in the mountains training again, to attack the U.S. again?
Any advice? Please comment.
For Emily:
I know this isn't something you have to do with these blogs but, I am not understanding the evidence you have provided... how is Bush a bad republican? What has he done bad that you have to use him as evidence?
Mohammad Kazmi
ReplyDelete"War in Afghanistan"
5 new cards and found one source from ny times
Along with refference to Al-Queda not being in Afghanistan I believe in my con that they are in Pakistan and if we look in Afghanistan and they might try to plan a terrorist attack in the U.S. I found some stuff for pro like if we don't stop fighting and let terrorists into our contry all that will happen is that thesecurity will go up. In the U.S. everyone will have less freedom and have to get stripped searched in airports, courts, and in the post office. Some places already do that but only people that they susspect are suspicious. I have proof of this because a guy had a bomb on his leg and try to commit suicide and kill inocent civilians but has stopped by the passaengers. After this airport security went up. Also I think the U.S. should try to make some kind of treaty with Afghanistan so we don't have to spend all this money and risk lives. If this doesn't work we should go back to war but i don't propose to withdraw our forces but try to settle a treaty while we our troops are in Afghanistan and if they approve we can saftley remove troops our help from the governemnt. Also we should try to stop the forts in Afghanistan from brainwashing soldiers to give their life for their country and to incourage to kill people because thats the source of the problem and the leader of it is probally Bin Laden
Emily: For Emily and Morgan Bush did make horrible desicions but so had Obama but they still did a lot of good thats probally why they stayed in office and didn't get impeached.
Morgan: I think that if we take out troops from Afghanistan they will take advantage of their chance to rebell not because we pull out to fast and they attack us.
Gimme feedback
A lot of people seemed to comment on my post so i'll just answer their questions.
ReplyDeleteJarril: i don't have sources on why CEOs are not in as high demand as they used to be, but i would say because more businesses failed so less CEOs are needed, and also because in the failing economy, the people hiring the executives are not wiling to give as high pay.
Neil: PRO. For proof on how they made the economy worse, i just didn't post up numbers, but they made the economy worse because they were receiving so much pay in a period where there wasn't a lot of money going around. Also, CEOs would pay their workers more in order to justify the fact that they were receiving so much pay rather than having their pay cut down. And by reviewing the compensation plans, i mean being more strict with what factors the use to decide how the CEOs get paid.
CON. when i said he CEOs will be unhappy, i meant their production might go down, but that is a minor point. My main argument is that WE do not need to reduce CEO pay because is it's already going down by itself. It is because of what i said to Mr. Jarril, and because companies profits shrink, so will CEO salaries. (i say companies profits shrink because we are in a recession, and most companies don't make as much as they used to...) Also, over 2008-2009, CEOs wages shrunk 50%.
Morgan
1) Yes, there could be other reasons for the failing economy besides CEO pay, but it certainly does not help that CEOs get paid so much and make it seem reasonable by raising the pay of their employees rather than getting paid less.
2. No, but they do somewhat deserve their pay, because they have a higher level job than the other workers. Also, my main argument is not that they deserve their pay, but that WE do not need to reduce CEO pay because it is reducing itself. (i mentioned the reasons already.)
Dhruv
For my con argument, it is true that most other people WOULD be in support of lowering CEO pay, my main argument isn't that CEOs deserve all of there pay, but that we don't have to make pay cuts because their pay is naturally lowering.
COMMENTS
Alec: The 10 points you made were valid, but they are not supported by evidence. If yo don't have any evidence, it is easy to attack those points.
Haddon: I don't know if this is what you said, but if your argument for pro is mainly that one story, that is only one case, and you can't say all CEOs are corrupt like that.
Dhruv K. Patel
ReplyDeleteOlympics...
Ok, so far, this week on my debate,I've gotten 2 pretty goo sources on the economics of the Olympics. I will list them so you guys can criticize on them:
2002 Olympics: http://travel.utah.gov/research_and_planning/2002_olympics/documents/OlympicTTRA.pdf
This is a small article (it is not really a blog. It's from WALL STREET JOURNAL):http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/04/17/hosting-olympics-finally-pays-off/tab/article/
I haven't really "read" the first article but i skimmed it.The first article shows how much spending was it the 2002 (i think) Olympics. I might be misinterpreting it but i think it's trying to show how much spending occured so i guess i can use that for pro.
The 2nd one is pretty short but it brought up a whole new idea for me. Thats why i will use it. It talks about how host the olympics benefits the country because it highers trade. I think the connection between hosting the games or highering trade is the creation of olympic based products. If anyone else see a connection that i don't please tell me.
Response
MO
About your plan to make a treaty with Afghanistan. DO you really think that's a practical plan? Do you really think that Afghanistan will want to make peace. They probably have the same reasons to keep fighting as us so even if we somehow get out government to agree with it, i don't think they will.
Alec
for your source on Nancy Peloski. I don't really understand how mandating health care would be unconstitutional.Does it violate some right that says freedom of business or something? I think it's probably true, but make sure you put this in your debate.
Jaxx Ottinger/Whitey J/Mr.Boss
ReplyDeleteOne thing I've been thinking about a lot is if Obamas plan is really good. I am leaning to the side that it is good. Because he is planning to go to Afghanistan like send more troops to fight for are freedom and then start withdrawing in 2011. I think that is a good plan and it will work. I have been finding a lot of good sourec from NEW york Times. One is the isues between Iraq and United States. I used prop and it was good and I also like it because it isn't only explaining the propblem between United States and Afghanistan it is saying the problem with Iraq too. But I am trying to find a lot of sources from differnt places too. I've also been trying to find more info on Al Quadeo. Buty it is hard. I also agree with Obamas plan of hitting the key population points so they get scared and a lot of their troops die.
Emily: Their is a lot of info on how bad republicans are. And their is a lot of information about how president Bush messed some things up like sending more troops to Iraq when nobody agreed with him and it was a stupid decision. So their is a lot of information. But I do agree it is hard to admit sometimes republicans mess up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lol lol lol l0l!!!!!
Jordana Rosenberg
ReplyDeleteInternational Sporting Events Such
as the Olympics Do More Harm than Good
Week of March 15st - March 19th
Over the past week I have added information to my outline from the articles I had (had or have?) found last week.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ip75a7Pj-G3CeLbht1AZ9nRahV1gD9EANBT02
http://ijsf.wordpress.com/
http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2010/2/26/4466190.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4335464n
http://geographyfieldwork.com/barcelona.htm
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/08/putin_olympics_money_might_have_been_misspent
http://www.chinadaily.net/bizchina/2008-08/23/content_6964525.htm
http://www.bized.co.uk/current/mind/2004_5/221104.htm
http://www.drugdetection.net/drug.htm
(It seems like I have posted a lot compared to the couple of sources that everyone else has but I just find a lot of sources at one time and then add them in after.)
I have read them again and started to highlight them and as I said before added little to my outline.
In my con I said the statement "does more harm than good" is too harsh because the problems that the Olympics face are easy to solve and there are a lot of good things about the Olympics. Do you think that is a way to create a strong argument?
Is it okay to say the Olympics do more harm than good but not other international sporting evens and vise-versa?
Mo -
I think you have some pretty good points but I'm not sure how they all connect with your topic. (Guy who tried to commit suicide.) This could be because I don't know enough about your topic. If they are relevant you should explain why in your speech so people, like me, know what you are talking about.
Alec -
I think you're source could be valid but you gave no evidence to support your anecdotes. I also think that article has the same problems the Sean Hannity and Dick Morris video had. When will taxes go up? How will it hurt seniors? . . . Should use it as a source but probably not trust all of the information unless you can prove it.
Ps: Jordanas is way to long but mine is better Waaaaaccccccchhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Jaxx/Whitey
ReplyDeleteNeil
ReplyDeleteFor Mo,
How will staying in Afghanistan be "letting terrorists into the country". Airport security is already very tight. It won't tighten if we bring our troops back from Afghanistan. Also, you said that one man had a bomb in his leg and he was caught. Doesn't that mean that the security is already good. I don't think that your need to change is clear and therefore your plan to "make a treaty" isn't practical (it would be difficult) and unworkable (you don't give a clear problem). However, that's just how I see it. Finally, in your criticism for Emily, I just have one question. What mistakes has Obama made? That's something you should just think about.
P.S. Really Jaxx?
Neil
ReplyDeleteThat was just my criticism. My actual blog is at the top.
Evaa:Democrats polocies are to blame for most of this country's current problems.
ReplyDeleteI found tons and tons of more websites this week. i acually found what we did earlier this week with looking up our topics in class helpful because i looked back at the websites and found that i was getting better sources then before. in the past i didn't really consider looking at blogs, but i'm reading over some just to see some opinions of people. It's makes things make more sense. im not including them as a source because that'd be just horrible but i'm not ignoring them. i saw when some people put about blaming the republicans and democrats for con, but i don't really know because wouldn't that be like repeating what you said in the pro, just adding on with the republicans? i also saw the idea of adding bush in there. i already have a few things from him, but he wasn't the only one who has done wrong, everyone has, and i think that's where including that both the republicans and the democrats are to blame comes in here. bt over all i guess i just have to think about including both the republicans and democrats to blame for con.
to mo:
for the thing about the securtity going up, isn't the security pretty high already? do you think making the security even better will acually help? and i don't think making peace will help at all either. have peace treaties really worked in the past? just like umm world war two i guess ha, they tried to make a treaty after world war one but it didn't happen,and so that led to world war too. so do you think that making a peace treaty will really work? or will one thing just lead to another. and about stopping the guys from killing themselves for their counrty..i don't think that's going to be able to happen either because they won't just all of a sudden decide to stop doing that just because someone said so. it's not going to happen. over all, i think your doing okay, just think deeper into what your saying. thats aaaall :)
James
ReplyDeleteNuclear reactors
I have all my sources making note cards this weekend.
So what I have found out is that nuclear reactors are better for the air than coal plants. BUT coal plants don't effect the water while running unlike the nuclear reactors. Now I have a chart that shows what would happen and I am not going to explain it cause its 11:00 and I'm not going to bother but it explains how the reactors polution always come to us in different wayz. Now coal plants run on fossil fuels which hurts the enviroment and us, but if one were to get rid of them there are still car and other vehcals that run on fossil fuel and still poluit the air and us.
TO JAXX
I gind the your points are okay but you only talk about Obama. this and Obama that. Now his plan is okay as far as know but what are others
Lolcatz.com