outsourcing jobs

For the past 10 years the countries unemployment rate has increased dramatically due to jobs being sent overseas. My mom used to be a computer programmer and lost her job in 2002 to japan, not only did she suffer from her job loss but my family did. Because of her job loss my mother turned to alcoholism which then led to depression. This went on for about 6 months and then she realized that doing nothing about her current situation wouldn't help anything. My mother then decided to go back to school and pursued a nursing degree. Since many jobs have been sent overseas for cheap labor it has effected not only my mom but millions of other people and families as well. I believe that we shouldn't worry about other countries unemployment rate because here in America we have the same amount of problems if not more. By minimizing outsourcing jobs we can create more American jobs which in return would provide financial stability which would help our economy. Outsourcing jobs is a very big problem because many Americans today have a hard time getting a job because of the lack of availability due to them being sent overseas for cheaper labor. Everyone always complains about the homeless, and how they need to get a job, but how are they supposed to get a job when most of the jobs today are either overseas or now done mechanically? I agree with your views on keeping jobs in America so that we have a more stable economy. As you mentioned in your blog about how President Obama in his 2008 campaign promised "to stop giving tax breaks to companies outsourcing jobs overseas and to start giving them to companies creating jobs in the US" I agree with you that we have not seen any changes in the decreasing of outsourcing jobs. Outsourcing may be beneficial to bigger companies, American people are the ones missing out on greater opportunities.

Obama wants to reduce the amount of fuel imports

On wednesday President Obama called for one-third reduction on oil imports over the next decade, and made it clear that that the effort had to begin immediately. The United States has consumed between three and four million barrels a day of imported fuel, thats a lot considering they say they want to cut down on fuel intake. The president said that the United States cannot continue to consume one-quater of the worlds oil production while possessing only two percent of global reserves. A long-term plan needs to begin to reduce the reliance of imported oil because as we all have been told for the past 30 years approximately every president has said that they are going to reduce the amount of fuel imported to the United States but has never lived up to it. In reality I believe that there is no quick fix to the nation's oil addiction, people rely way to much on fuel to get them through their daily lives. Obama introduces a mix of new strategies, none of them new, and all seem impossible to weaning the nation off the barrel.  People often say that a good fuel-saving strategy is producing more electric cars and converting trucks and buses to run on natural gas which would be great but would it really stop the amount of fuel used? I don't believe that it would make to much of a difference because thats a big purchase people would have to make and I don't think right now is a time many people could afford a big purchase like that. "We're going to have to find ways to boost our efficiency so that we use less oil. We've got to discover and produce cleaner, renewable sources of energy that also produce less carbon pollution that is threatening our climate. And we have to do it quickly" President Obama said. Although Obama may have multiple good strategies about that Government reducing the amount of fuel imported to the United States, he isn't reliable enough in my eyes to actually get anything done other than put this country in debt billions of more dollars. We have heard all of these strategies multiple times from all the previous presidents and none of them have seemed to work I believe that its going to take a little less talking and a lot more action to actually wean the nation off the barrel. The nation has a tendency, ever since the first Arab oil embargo in 1973, to panic when gasoline prices rise and then fall back into old fuel-guzzling habits when prices reduce. When gas prices go up everyone is quick to be upset and cause a big uproar and when they go down no one worry's about the fuel economy. That strongly is the governments fault, because when the people stop complaining it gets pushed to the bottom of their lists of concerns, how is anything ever going to get solved if you don't constantly enforce the issue and work on it until its solved? Since the nation is so far in debt with China and multiple other countries that should be a big eye opener that they need to stop using other countries goods and resources such as oil and start using Americans to do the labor needed to make things, and our land to get resources such as oil. When their are big tragedies that happen in Countries where we get our oil and they can no longer produce oil for the time being or even if they wanna start selling the barrels of oil for more money they can do that. If i was one of them countries I would be charging the United States way more money for the fuel that they use just because I could. The United States has very few of its own oil drills which relies heavily on other countries. Although fuel imports is a big issue in this country I don't believe that anything will ever change until people start stressing the issue more and take action instead of talking about it. 

Anti-Abortion laws passed yet again in South Dakota

In the blog lists Little Green Footballs I chose a blog written by Charles Johnson. He writes about a national issue going on today that affects a variety of people, abortion. In the authors blog he seems to be directing his issue towards women who are looking to have abortions in South Dakota. Her credibility comes from the "National Organization for Women". In this editorial he talks about how Republican governor of South Dakota, Dennis Daugaard, has signed a law that forces women considering on having an abortion to wait three days after meeting with a doctor as well as them undergoing counseling at anti-abortion. where girls wanting to have an abortion have to see a doctor 3 days before having an abortion as well as having someone talk to them about adoption. Supporters of the law passed say South Dakotas only abortion clinic, Planned Parenthood in Sioux Falls, gives women little information before they have abortions done by doctors coming in from all over the United States. The author argues that the doctor who performs the abortions in South Dakota must be flown in from out of state which will result in double the cost for the operation if the doctor can even manage to fly all that way 2 times in a week. He says "poor women are denied a choice, once again. Rich girls fly out of state. Good job Republicans! Keep the poor poor. Barefoot and pregnant, thats the way it should be."

I mainly agree with the authors arguments. When someone goes to an abortion clinic to get an abortion they are not going to the clinic to get preached to about not having sex or necessarily what to do, they are going to get their abortion and to have support on their decision. Although it is a very hard thing to undergo and it does require plenty of thinking I don't believe that it is necessary to meet with the doctor 3 days before undergoing the abortion. Most people already know the consequences of abortions and since the doctors that do the abortions in south dakota have to fly in from other states I believe that it is a complete waste of time and money. For instance, what if a girl has a doctor fly in for a consolation and then decides she doesn't want an abortion, the doctor then wasted time and money. I believe that women should be able to have rights to their own decisions and having someone try and convince you to do something you don't want to do is preventing women from having rights.

Will states fix health laws or well they continue to whine about it?

The authors intended audience in this article http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2011-03-08-editorial08_ST_N.htm is directed primarily towards republicans who have been appealing the heath plan. The authors credibility seems factual and it seems as if the information is coming from the government itself and also what the author may hear on the news, but at the same time it seems very opinionated. The author believes that if people hate the mandate that makes you pay health insurance then to get rid of it, and if you dont like the state insurance exchanges where people without employer-provided insurance will buy coverage then we should just change them completely. The author believes that there are to many people out there today that are uninsured or that have health insurance that runs out and ends up having to pay everything back leading to severe bankruptcy. Some conservatives have proposed automatically enrolling everyone in an insurance plan but allowing them to opt out, just as long as they sign a waiver giving up the elses and yet again that has people depending more on more on the government. I dont think democrats understand that The United States is bancrupt and has absolutly has no money and owes trillions and trillions of dollars. Pretty much Obama is saying that the people that work continue to pay health insurance and all that money goes into one and that covers the people who pay for health insurance and the bums that dont pay for insurance. Thats rediculous, due to the government controlling the health care they will be able to benefits of the new law, such as the right to insurance if they have a previous condition. I disagree with this author to an extreme because in my opinion if you dont have health insurance thats YOUR fault not anyone decide how much money they pay workers in the hospitals and will most likely decrease the pay of how much they pay everyone.

US in major debt

China now owns $1.16 trillion of US debt.. According to cbnews "China today is the biggest buyer of US treasuries and owns alot more than previously estimated." Because the increase in Chinese holdings "their is a fear that Chinese investors might start raising their interest rates. If that were to happen it would slow America's economic recovery and increase Washingtons costs for financing the $14.3 trillion national debt."

This article is very important for many reasons, not only is it important for the government but its important for all the citizens. Since most of the jobs have been sent over seas to China for cheap labor I believe that they got very carried away and wasted way to much money. I believe that if they would stop sending jobs over seas then we wouldnt be in this debt that we are in today. Instead of the government having to give people unimployment big money companies for example Nike could bring jobs back to America and give the American people jobs that way they wont have to recieve unemployment money. But since we are so far in debt I think that this article is so important because most people live their lives and dont realize alot of stuff going on in the government. It wont be long until this issue will be effecting everyones lives, not only when you go to purchase a loan but also when you go to apply for a grant, there is no money to loan or give anymore because we are having to pay back countries like China before they raise interest rates.

Lets see what my classmates have talked about.
Victoria.
Brian.
Natalie.
William
Mora.
Kimberly
Randall.
Ian

Sources
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503983_162-20037535-503983.html?tag=cbsnewsSectionsArea;cbsnewsSectionsArea.2

Kelseys Political Views

I have grown up in a strong political family. My dad, being in the army is a strong republican and has passed his views and beliefs down to me. I don't know much about the government in all honesty but from what I do know most of my views are strongly republican. I took my Political Ideology and this is what I received:

Social Conservative

Based on your answers to the questionnaire, you most closely resemble survey respondents within the Social Conservative typology group. This does not mean that you necessarily fit every group characteristic or agree with the group on all issues.

Social Conservatives represent 11 percent of the American public, and 13 percent of registered voters.

Basic Description
One of three core Republican groups, Social Conservatives (along with Pro-Government Conservatives) are somewhat more religious than are Enterprisers. They are supportive of an assertive foreign policy and very conservative on social and cultural issues. In policy terms, they break from the Enterprisers in their cynical views of business, modest support for environmental and other regulation, and strong anti-immigrant sentiment.

Defining Values
Conservative on social issues ranging from gay marriage to abortion. Support an assertive foreign policy and oppose government aid for the needy, believing people need to make it on their own. Strongly worried about impact of immigrants on American society. More middle-of-the-road on economic and domestic policies, expressing some skepticism about business power and profits, and some support for government regulation to protect the environment. While not significantly better-off than the rest of the nation, most express strong feelings of financial satisfaction and security.

Who They Are
Predominantly white (91%), female (58%) and the oldest of all groups (average age is 52; 47% are 50 or older); nearly half live in the South. Most (53%) attend church weekly; 43% are white evangelical Protestants (double the national average of 21%).

Lifestyle Notes
56% report having a gun in their home, and 51% attend Bible study groups.

2004 Election
Bush 86%, Kerry 4%.

Party ID
82% Republican, 18% Independent/No Preference, 0% Democrat (97% Rep/LeanRep)

Media Use
Half of Social Conservatives cite newspapers as a main source of news; the Fox News Channel (34%) and network evening news (30%) are their major TV news sources.

Note: All descriptions and percentages are based on the national sample of adults surveyed by telephone in December. Based on your answers to the survey questions, you most closely resemble survey respondents within this group, even though you may differ significantly on one or more issues or traits.

In the overall typology there is a ninth group called “Bystanders” who are defined as adults who are not registered, who do not follow news about government and public affairs, and who say they rarely or never vote.

I have already taken State Government during the fall and learned a lot about how the government in Texas works. In all honestly I have no goals in achieving anything that involves politics or the government what so ever; but since politics and the government are very much involved in our lives, and can make the balance beam lean a little more our way if we know how to work the system, I figured I would learn what i can and make the most of the government classes i take during my college career, and it wouldn't hurt to learn more about why i'm a Republican. Growing up with a father in the army he always told me that you have to work hard for what you want and that the government should stop giving people that are lazy and don't have a job our money that we pay in taxes. I strongly agree with that. In my eyes if the government continues to give free stuff such as a housing allowance and free food to needy families then they will never seek a job and then pretty soon everyone will be depending on the government. Ever since President Obama, who I strongly dislike, has gone into office he has had some ridiculous ideas one such as the Health Care Plan. I believe that this plan is outrageously idiotic considering people who go to school for years and have thousands of dollars in student loans will graduate and will be making the same amount of money as people who have little education or none at all.  Right now, politics is not a big part of my life because I currently don't work and I am just a student, but I believe that in the future it will play a big role in my life, knowing this i hope to benefit from this class.

http://typology.people-press.org/typology/results.php

5Links to mainstream video sources-
http://www.nytimes.com/
http://www.latimes.com/
http://online.wsj.com/home-page
http://www.cbsnews.com/
http://www.csmonitor.com/

5 Links to political blog sources
http://www.counterpunch.org/
http://www.drudgereport.com/
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
http://www.dailykos.com/
http://www.americablog.com/