Democracy is an imperfect system, especially with such a large population as we have here in the United States, but it is the best option that we have right now. I think that democracy is a really good option for the United States and other countries, but two things need to happen. First, our democratic system needs to evolve as our country evolves and changes, not stay outdated just because we are afraid to change what sort of works. Second, we need to work on our own democracy, not try to force our slightly broken system down other country's throats.
One way that our democracy needs to evolve is to become more compatible with our capitalistic system. Clearly they are not working hand in hand right now as they should be. I'm not exactly clear on what the best way to go about doing this is, but I know that it's something that needs to happen if we want both systems to stay in tact. In my opinion that is democracy's biggest flaw--that the way it works now is not compatible with capitalism.
This post is the same as the one that I used for the discussion on blackboard. I haven't included any sources from the book, or catchy images, because I think that this one is just for my opinion. I can't think of any images or videos that express what I am trying to say here, and people should be able to take the time to read this post with out having an image to draw them in. What do you think needs to change for democracy to be more compatible with capitalism? Please feel free to comment and share your opinions and functions of democracy, I would love to hear them.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Economic Policy
Terms to understand this post:
Fiscal Policy-Manipulates the total amount of government revenue and spending so as to manage overall demand in the economy. Can result in budget deficit or budget surplus (Katznelson, 294).
Monetary Policy-Attempts to fine-tune the economy by manipulating interest rates, the cost of money (Katznelson, 302).
Discretionary Spending- Under the jurisdiction of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, which provide authority for federal agencies to incur obligations and make payments out of the treasury for specified purpose. Example: defense spending, highway maintenance, grants and loans for higher education (Katznelson, 303).
Mandatory Spending-Governed by formulas or criteria set forth in authorizing legislation, passed by Congress, rather than by appropriations. These programs are the result of previous commitments that Congress is obligated to meet (Katznelson, 301).
I think that the process of developing fiscal policy that provides services and sustainability should focus more on mandatory spending and less on discretionary spending. (The other type of economic policy is monetary policy). For example, the United States should put much less emphasis on military spending--it consumes a whopping one-half of all discretionary spending (Katznelson, 303)!! I think that reducing that number to maybe a fifth of discretionary spending would be a good goal, because putting that much money into defense, besides being unnecessary, is not sustainable. If a country were to spend left over discretionary funds at all, they should be put back into stimulating that country's economy.
Sources:
"Barack Obama Calls For More Defense Spending than Republicans | SwiftEconomics.com."SwiftEconomics.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2011. <http://www.swifteconomics.com/2011/02/20/obama-calls-for-more-defense-spending-than-republicans/>.
Katznelson, Ira, Mark Kesselman, and Alan Draper. The politics of power: a critical introduction to Americna government. 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.,2011. 2-12. Print.
Fiscal Policy-Manipulates the total amount of government revenue and spending so as to manage overall demand in the economy. Can result in budget deficit or budget surplus (Katznelson, 294).
Monetary Policy-Attempts to fine-tune the economy by manipulating interest rates, the cost of money (Katznelson, 302).
Discretionary Spending- Under the jurisdiction of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, which provide authority for federal agencies to incur obligations and make payments out of the treasury for specified purpose. Example: defense spending, highway maintenance, grants and loans for higher education (Katznelson, 303).
Mandatory Spending-Governed by formulas or criteria set forth in authorizing legislation, passed by Congress, rather than by appropriations. These programs are the result of previous commitments that Congress is obligated to meet (Katznelson, 301).
I think that the process of developing fiscal policy that provides services and sustainability should focus more on mandatory spending and less on discretionary spending. (The other type of economic policy is monetary policy). For example, the United States should put much less emphasis on military spending--it consumes a whopping one-half of all discretionary spending (Katznelson, 303)!! I think that reducing that number to maybe a fifth of discretionary spending would be a good goal, because putting that much money into defense, besides being unnecessary, is not sustainable. If a country were to spend left over discretionary funds at all, they should be put back into stimulating that country's economy.
Sources:
"Barack Obama Calls For More Defense Spending than Republicans | SwiftEconomics.com."SwiftEconomics.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2011. <http://www.swifteconomics.com/2011/02/20/obama-calls-for-more-defense-spending-than-republicans/>.
Katznelson, Ira, Mark Kesselman, and Alan Draper. The politics of power: a critical introduction to Americna government. 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.,2011. 2-12. Print.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Welfare?
I think that the welfare system in the United States is slightly ridiculous. My firsthand experience has shown me people who abuse the system, and people who really need it and use it properly. Last year, my mom was receiving a $1250 check from the USPS for disability retirement every month, but we had over $7000 in bills per month. We didn't qualify for food stamps, but I am getting my full education paid for by financial aid and then some. How is it that my education is more important than our starving family?! Food stamps are a type of public assistance program.
These programs, which are supposed to help citizens missed by social insurance, are selective and means tested (Katznelson, 320). A prime example of the ridiculousness of our welfare system is given by The Politics of Power: Under TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), the maximum benefit for a family of three ranges from a high of nearly $1000 (Alaska) to a low of under $300 (Georgia), (Katznelson, 320). My mother has struggled to simply feed herself, my sister and me for $300, so I cannot imagine trying to support all of us for a whole month on that amount.
Our government should offer assistance to those who need it, despite the people who will inevitably take advantage. I think that doing this does not sacrifice equity, because it gives help to those people who really do need assistance without judging them based on the people who abuse the system. If we put more money into social policy, some people would inevitably take advantage of the welfare system, as they already do, but will our whole country become lazy people who depend on the government? I think, probably not. We should not stop trying to reform welfare, but that reform should absolutely not include taking benefits away from people who need them.
Lets give them both!
Sources:
Katznelson, Ira, Mark Kesselman, and Alan Draper. The politics of power: a critical introduction to Americna government. 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.,2011. 2-12. Print.
Nicolle. "economy « Reactionary Century."Reactionary Century. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2011. <http://reactionarycentury.wordpress.com/tag/economy/>.
These programs, which are supposed to help citizens missed by social insurance, are selective and means tested (Katznelson, 320). A prime example of the ridiculousness of our welfare system is given by The Politics of Power: Under TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), the maximum benefit for a family of three ranges from a high of nearly $1000 (Alaska) to a low of under $300 (Georgia), (Katznelson, 320). My mother has struggled to simply feed herself, my sister and me for $300, so I cannot imagine trying to support all of us for a whole month on that amount.
Our government should offer assistance to those who need it, despite the people who will inevitably take advantage. I think that doing this does not sacrifice equity, because it gives help to those people who really do need assistance without judging them based on the people who abuse the system. If we put more money into social policy, some people would inevitably take advantage of the welfare system, as they already do, but will our whole country become lazy people who depend on the government? I think, probably not. We should not stop trying to reform welfare, but that reform should absolutely not include taking benefits away from people who need them.
Lets give them both!
Sources:
Katznelson, Ira, Mark Kesselman, and Alan Draper. The politics of power: a critical introduction to Americna government. 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.,2011. 2-12. Print.
Nicolle. "economy « Reactionary Century."Reactionary Century. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2011. <http://reactionarycentury.wordpress.com/tag/economy/>.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Developing Foreign Policy
I believe that in developing its foreign and domestic policies, a nation-state's first priority should be keeping its people safe. In my opinion, the United States has clearly failed at this. Our leaders have been so busy sticking our nose in other countries' business that they failed to protect the American people. Before 9/11 they ignored repeated warnings by their own experts regarding likely attacks of the same kind (Katznelson, 368). The United States has military bases on every continent except Africa, with 15 major military bases and 600 smaller ones (Katznelson, 350). Is this amount of control really necessary? What advantages do US citizens gain from this practice? Secondly, a nation-state should concern itself with the overall wellbeing of the world. As the world becomes more and more globalized, individual countries are affected more and more by the state of the rest of the world. Take for example how the disaster in Japan and the crisis in Libya have affected the lives of Americans (just look at gas prices, among other things!). The United States might pursue worthy goals such as working with other nations to eliminate nuclear weapons; taking the lead in promoting alternative energy sources and other steps to deal with global warming; preserving the world's battered ecosystem; reducing poverty, hunger, disease and economic inequalities; and strengthening democracy and human rights (Katznelson, 368).
Sources:
Katznelson, Ira, Mark Kesselman, and Alan Draper. The politics of power: a critical introduction to Americna government. 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.,2011. 2-12. Print.
"WSN Proposals." World Security Network. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Apr. 2011. <www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/dsp_proposal.cfm%3Fproposal_id%3D230&usg=__lYqNNxw5HLkmaaTvd6BgTXThHko=&h=375&w=300&sz=67&hl=en&start=52&sig2=6IS9uiDrakCd1XO1Zn5new&zoom=1&tbnid=vIsRtY91rTuOcM:&tbnh=139&tbnw=103&ei=haaYTevVGojQsAPZp9XBBQ&prev=/images%3Fq%3DU>.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)