{"content":{"sharePage":{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"10087720","dateCreated":"1236805190","smartDate":"Mar 11, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"RRajput","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/RRajput","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/apgov08.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/10087720"},"dateDigested":1531983363,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"Budget Proposal","description":"It is evident that the majority of the support for Obama's proposed $3.6 trillion dollar budget will come from the Democrats. They believe that money needs to be spent now in order to help the current state of the economy. However, they are unhappy with Obama's idea to cut subsidies. Republicans are very dissatisfied with the idea of "big government". They believe that the President and Congress's actions will ultimately bear a burden on "the nation's childrena and grandchildren" who will be responsible for paying back the nation's accumulated debt.
\nThe fact that Republicans are waiting for the Democrats to further damage the country's economy in order to point fingers at them is unncessary and childish. I believe that Republicans need to make more of an effort to support Obama's policies, or effecitvely negotiate with Democrats to pass through their own agenda.
\nThe reality is that the conflict between Democrats and Republicans regarding the budget will never come to an end unless we see success or failure in the Democrats' proposed policies. I agree with Emily's statement that the budget is more "reactive" rather than "proactive". The economic stimulus package and the proposed budget are focused on bringing about economic recovery.
\nI also partially agree with Matt and Emily's comment regarding public opinion and the budget's approval. The democrats have enough of a majority in Congress to pass this bill and do not need to solely rely on public opinion. However, Democrats can not afford to lose the few republicans that have consistently sided wtih them. Public opinion, I believe, will help sway how these few Republicans vote, and help maintain the Democratic congressional support that Obama currently has.","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[],"more":0}]},{"id":"9703362","dateCreated":"1235933479","smartDate":"Mar 1, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"CBurton-haldeman","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/CBurton-haldeman","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/apgov08.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/9703362"},"dateDigested":1531983363,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"Budget Divide","description":"The President and Congress are about to enter a battle over the budget. Comment on the reactions of party leaders to the President's proposed budget. What do you think of their reactions? How might this mood affect the battle over the budget?","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"10147444","body":"Oh, Matt, don't worry it's "all good". We are all friends (I mean, after all, it's not like we're in Congress). So, all of the distinguished gentlemen and gentlewomen from LM are making interesting points (and I'm enjoying the back-and-forth--had I known that budget talk would get everyone so riled up, I might have saved this conversation for class!). So, just a few thoughts:
\nWe're clearly seeing the philosophical divide in our discussion. While many of us develop 'sticker shock' when we see the size of this budget, we also recognize that government programs (both those we don't like and those we like) cost money. Our disagreements, however, lie in our philosophies about the role of government. In that respect, we may not be that different from members of Congress. What our debate lacks, however, is the rhetoric. None of you are 'playing politics' with the issue, which makes it a more honest debate. I think we all agree that it's too bad our representatives can't meet that standard. The lack of bipartisanship has been a common theme in your posts and I'm sure most Americans would agree that compromise should be possible. One can certainly maintain his principles and still look for common-ground. Unfortunately, it seems that this budget proposal will be more like a battle-ground.
\n
\nOne final note, thanks to everyone who has put so much thought into their responses (and particularly to those of you who've added other questions and sources; giving others something to think about and extending the conversation is the goal of this page).","dateCreated":"1236910382","smartDate":"Mar 12, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"CBurton-haldeman","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/CBurton-haldeman","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"10148662","body":"Recently, President Barack Obama introduced his $3.6 trillion budget proposal, which was received with hostility from the Republican Party. If this is the new budget, I hardly think Obama will have a hard time cutting it in half by the end of his first term. The Republican party, along with a small number of Democrats are arguing that this budget proposal is creating big government beyond what the Constitution intended. In addition, they argue that allowing big government leads to dependency by those who use government funds, and ultimately a weakened state of the U.S. job force. I must agree with this point. Human nature has shown a tendency throughout history to take what it receives easily, rather than work hard to achieve that same goal.
\nIn addition to the basic facts of the budget proposal, the issue of divided government is important to look at. If we have such divided parties over an issue that is so substantial and important to our government, then the goal of bipartisanship does not look too hopeful. I think since some democrats argue against the ending the tax cut for the wealthy, Obama should at least withdraw this proposal because both parties agree that they do not like it. Of course it is natural for Obama to defend his bill as he should, even though I disagree with some of his points.
\nAs I look at how such a large sum of money will affect the United States economy, I think that it is dangerous. Spending more and more money will drop our nation into deeper and deeper economic decline. This is evident since the stock market has continued to fall overall since the passage of the stimulus. If we look back at the trickle-down policy of Ronald Reagan, there we can see a successful action taken to revive the economy. Maybe that is the solution.","dateCreated":"1236913435","smartDate":"Mar 12, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"nmilbar","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/nmilbar","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"10148786","body":"I must agree with David on the point that it is ok for Republicans to use fear as a tactic. Obama did it with the economy so why should Republicans be held to a double standard?
\nIn response to what Cait said about focusing on current economic issues instead of looking to the future, then this is slightly hypocritical. Democrats (which I do not know if you are or not Cait so this is not aimed at you) argue that Republicans and members of Wall Street carelessly did things to plunge our economy into downfall now rather than caring about the effects on the future, which is now.
\nWe must at least learn from this that the government cannot do the same thing and spend recklessly, leaving an insurmountable debt to future generations.","dateCreated":"1236913780","smartDate":"Mar 12, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"nmilbar","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/nmilbar","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"10149160","body":"Niv--I'm curious about what aspects of the budget you see as creating dependency on the government.","dateCreated":"1236915060","smartDate":"Mar 12, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"CBurton-haldeman","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/CBurton-haldeman","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"10149944","body":"BH:I would like to answer your question Mrs. BH. I do not think dependency is the right word, but more so it becomes a false life jacket. The fact that the government is pouring money into the economy will negatively affect the natural cycle of the economy. I agree that we need to fix the infrastructure, become energy independent, and become a more progressive nation through scientific and technological research. Yet, it is simply unfortunate that this money can only come from the public sector. I only feel this way because inflation and unemployment are high, and they are meant to be inversely proportional. We have a period of stagflation. (please read what i write to niv)
\n
\nBut Niv: How can you say that public works are bad. Yes of course we need a strong private sector, but what is wrong with a government subsidized works project. Lets be realistic now, Ronald Regan "trickle down economics" only worked before a global economy. Now if we give tax breaks and subsidies to big business they will invest in outsourcing jobs and factories, when in the 70's that economic system only worked because jobs were being created here. We both know that the money we invest in big business will not create nearly the same percentage of jobs that it did under the Republicans messiah (Reagan).
\n
\nBill Maher the other night on his show said that people were criticizing Obama for trying to make more government run programs saying, "do we want our hospitals and banks to run like the post office?" The post office that will ship a letter from LA to New York in 2 days for 42 cents. That is efficient, fair, and is a government run program. So even though Ronald Reagan said the 9 worst words are " I'm from the government and I'm here to help" We all know that there is a balance and right now we all need some help.","dateCreated":"1236917552","smartDate":"Mar 12, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"wpeltzman","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/wpeltzman","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"10150474","body":"
\nPresident Obama just released his 3.6 trillion dollar budget. Now he faces the disagreement between the Republicans and Democrats in Congress (duh). Who knew that the Republicans would not support this plan, because I definitely did. The only surprise is that some Democrats now oppose the bill and are unhappy with the ending of tax cuts for the wealthy. Now Obama has to plan figure out a way to make both parties are, or semi agree so that Congress is not longer a madhouse.
\n
\nWho can blame the Republicans for being cautious about the budget plan. 3.6 trillion dollars is not that kind of money that we can afford to just throw around. We have to make sure that a large amount of money like that is put towards a plan that is sure to work. If not it is our generation that will be paying for it. As Republicans they kind of have the right to be more cautious about that kind of money than Democrats. Obama surely knew that they would put up a fight for this and was prepared for a battle with them. Of course there were some Democrats who were unhappy with this budget plan, but again who wouldn't be with 3.6 trillion dollars at stake. I believe that in order to make this budget plan work and for it not to put a burden on our future there must be a tax increase on the rich. People making more than $500,000 a year have to understand that there are people out there who are actually earning no income at all. I'm sure they can afford to give a little if it is definite to help our economy and save many of the people who have officially lost everything. I believe that of course as our President, Obama has the right to do whatever he thinks necessary to save the economy. I do also think that he should listen to the Republicans because I'm sure they know what they are taking about. Although they will oppose probably 90% of everything Obama will say, he should make an effort to listen to their claims. In order to have a successful presidency, Obama must be able to listen to some of the Republicans. He cannot just appoint some to office and then just assume that his association with the Republicans is complete. I personally am not a supporter of this plan, but at the same time if I were in his position I would probably propose the same kind of plan. What else can the President do at this point besides try and boast our economy by throwing money into it? As for the Republicans and the Democrats, I don't see them settling on a compromise for a while. They just both have very different ideas about what kind of action a president should do at this point. Obama should not focus on congress for now and focus on the needs and opinions of the American people.","dateCreated":"1236920014","smartDate":"Mar 12, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"jfaynleyb","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/jfaynleyb","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"10150558","body":"Recently, Obama unveiled the 3.6 trillion dollar budget proposal. Unfortunately for Obama this will be tough to pass. Majority of republicans and even a few democrats have criticized the proposal. Although this plan isn't favored by all (Republicans in particular), it's just another example that shows new president Obama and how he has "hit the ground running". Although I don't know much about economics, I do understand that many people in the United States are being hit hard from this economic depression and reform is needed
\nI agree with what Rachel said earlier, our country is desperate and the republican opposition only puts them in a less favorable light especially since they are refusing their constituents.
\nHowever, in my opinion this stimulus package is far from perfect. There are many arguements that we are spending too much money in the wrong places. But it all depends how you view it, because realistically one man's pork is another man's benefit, if that makes sense.","dateCreated":"1236920458","smartDate":"Mar 12, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"smitchell27","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/smitchell27","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"10150616","body":"As for Caitlin, saying, "I feel as though we should be concerned with what is going on now, not focusing on the future. We are in very poor economic state and the only way to progress is by being proactive," I completely do not agree. We are the ones who are going to be paying off America's debts and the future debts that we will be facing after this plan is in full motion. I don't know about you guys, but I was kind of looking forward to retirement and at the looks of it right now we are spending our retirement money as we speak. Even not thinking that far ahead, I want my family to grow up and live comfortably and I want to be able to take care of my children, not have to worry about the crazy amount of taxes we will be paying once we are older and actually need to keep our money.","dateCreated":"1236920698","smartDate":"Mar 12, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"jfaynleyb","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/jfaynleyb","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"10150754","body":"It is certainly true that the Republicans are going to shy away from any drastic plan made by Obama, or perhaps anything at all, as they want to distance themselves in case things take a turn for the worse. The Republican party is certain weak now without a clear figurehead and no longer being in control after what was thought of as a failure anyway. However, I agree with Jacob that they are trying desperately to get support back, and doing so by trying to scare people away from Obama's plans. And yes, the government would be larger, but in the middle of this economic crisis, the larger government is almost necessary if there is any hope of resolving things.
\n
\nI also agree with Tom and Linda, that the same things have been said for years, and the same battles have been fought between the parties repeatedly, in differing circumstances. In this situation, I say Democrats take the control that they have and use it, because it is going to remain the same old song and dance as far as the arguments against it.","dateCreated":"1236921636","smartDate":"Mar 12, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"teckard","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/teckard","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"10181542","body":"In response to Wes's response to my question of Niv, dependency was the word Niv used and I'm just curious about what aspects of the budget, in his mind (and yours, I suppose), lead to 'dependency by those who use government funds'. Is it researchers who receive NIH grants? Is it schools that receive funds for Special Education? Is it cities that receive money for building programs?","dateCreated":"1236993895","smartDate":"Mar 13, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"CBurton-haldeman","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/CBurton-haldeman","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"10206132","body":"Well obviously I have missed out on the heated battle between many of my fellow classmates, but in being the last post here I found it very interesting as to how many people seemed to be more vocal in this medium of discussion. In using the their wiki-username as a shield, the debate has come down to what looks to be the old, conservative v. liberal rigmarole. For lack of a better term, our discussion is obviously philosophically backed and there are many instances where each side has valid points. I think we need to take a look back at the Great Depression and how FDR handled the situation.
\n
\nFirst off, let me start out by saying that in no means are we even close to the numbers or the shear devastation cause by the market crash. The only reason myself, and others look at it for help is to see what worked and what didn't. Why not learn from our past mistakes and successes. FDR's New Deal provided jobs and sustainability for both the people and the economy, while still having its flaws. The same can be said about Obama's stimulus plan.
\n
\nThe $3.6 Trillion dollar plan faces the same opposition that exists within this wiki discussion. With all the talk of bipartisanship, the stimulus plan has only further polarized the political spectrum. Republican's were noted in the NPR report as having political "beef" with the amount of interest we will be leaving behind on our children, restraining spending, and in restoring fiscal order within Washington. Republicans talk of Americans making sacrifices. Sacrifices? Clearly we shouldn't be going out to Circuit City and dropping a few grand on a new TV just because its going out of business (or maybe that would help the economy, not sure). In any case I think Americans are suffering enough. With having experienced what its like to have a parent out of a job and looking for work, I think asking the government to make fiscal sacrifices that will in turn inhibit the return of fiscal stability for the everyday American is wrong.
\n
\nOf course I'm not looking for the government to be handing out money, I'm looking for them to help restore consumer faith in the economy and help businesses insure that they will not have to layoff workers to pay their own bills. From what I've read and heard, many of the problems stem from that lack of confidence in the economy. Sure there are many things that need to be fixed, but Obama cannot be the single voice of reason in the crowd of economic panic. Everyone is yelling "fire" right now, and if more people start to say that the economy and housing markets are fixable then I think we will begin to see a bit of a change in at least the country's outlook.
\n
\nHere's where I voice the other side of the battle, and I'll do this by responding to Wes's last paragraph about Bill Maher. People have a right to be worried about government run programs that will be introduced through the Stimulus Plan. Obviously most of programs are not going towards taking over banks and hospitals, and are going towards the famed infrastructure and energy independence movement, but here's the problem with government run programs. I forget where I read this article and I'm sorry I cannot cite my information (which makes it seem like its not legit) but countries with government run hospitals are notorious for having problems with overcrowding and conditions that we wouldn't even leave our pets in. If the stimulus package were to begin the process of taking over things like hospitals then you would have to wait days to get an x-ray for a broken finger, or even to get a simple thing like blood work done. All we have to do is look at the horrible conditions of V.A. Hospitals and you have your answer as to how nationalized hospitals would work. There are ton's of great aspects of government helping the private sector out and the stimulus plan does a great job of getting involved in the appropriate sectors, but comparing services like the post office to hospitals is a bit of a stretch for me.
\n
\nI just realized how long this is and I hope I covered everything I needed to, but to just summarize my own view point; I think that the stimulus plan is necessary. We can argue over things like earmarks and pork, but these things help out your individual's communities. There is a need for regulation on earmarks, but it should not stop the plan from being passed. I think when we look back 70 years from now, hopefully we will say that we did the right thing, because we took the lessons we learned from past experiences and put them to work in our current climate. Everyone is going to disagree. Face it there will never be a happy United States government, but if we get to a point where we can let some of the minutia go while still sticking to our own individual principals we are libel to be effective problem solvers (hopefully good economic ones.)","dateCreated":"1237157274","smartDate":"Mar 15, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"GlenDeGeorge","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/GlenDeGeorge","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"10217662","body":"the budget itself:
\nIts too big, and there just is too much garbage mixed in with the essentials. Anything extra not related to buoying the economy, or strengthening\/ reorganizing regulatory agencies needs to be slashed. That means no health care reform, earmarks, etc. I can understand the need for the education and energy plans, but just cringe at the the sheer size of this thing. But its still hard to believe that all of this is actually happening, even during the campaign when Obama promised all of these 'changes.' I figured if he even attempted to get half of them past during this presidency we would be lucky, Noticing that politicians don't always keep their word, especially on policy. Even though i'm a big supporter of these reforms, this is all just too fast and way too ambitious for my liking.
\n
\nthe politics:
\nIt makes sense that Obama wants to get as much done as possible now, considering this is the most political capital he will have during his presidency, especially if the economy doesn't recover quickly.
\n
\nThe republicans approach to this whole situation is backwards, and will fail, unless Obama fails miserably. There is no doubt that the GOP is not only rooting for Obama to fail, but are praying for their lives that he does. Saying no to all legislation that isn't your own tends to really tick off the public. If we look back to Truman, you may recall that he miraculously pulled off a reelection in which even the newspapers had counted him out (http:\/\/www.blackarchives.org\/files\/imagecache\/collectionitem_large\/files\/collection\/00000268.jpg<\/a>). The most significant factor in his reelection was the numerous proposals he made that were shot down by the "do nothing" republican congress, whom Truman attacked relentlessly on during the campaign.
\n
\nImagine how the public would have been outraged if Truman's policy had been undermined by a minority republican party in congress. Considering this, there just isn't a way for the GOP's strategy to succeed without Obama failing miserably, and the country plunging even further into a recession. Opinion polls based on when voters claim they will begin blamin obama for the current state of the economy back this up (http:\/\/3.bp.blogspot.com\/_5ieXw28ZUpg\/Sb0407YkvyI\/AAAAAAAABBM\/YNmCly8WKI8\/s1600-h\/obrecov.png<\/a>) The slower the recovery, the greater obama's numbers will plunge.
\n
\nIt's really sad that this party refuses to respond to our President's call to action, when just six years ago all but one Democrat in congress voted to go to war in Iraq when a republican president made the same plea. And yes, this crisis can be compared to a war.... Well at least one person thinks so: (http:\/\/www.economyincrisis.org\/articles\/show\/2574<\/a>)","dateCreated":"1237202943","smartDate":"Mar 16, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"mkuritz","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/mkuritz","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}}],"more":25}]}],"more":false},"comments":[]},"http":{"code":200,"status":"OK"},"redirectUrl":null,"javascript":null,"notices":{"warning":[],"error":[],"info":[],"success":[]}}