I agree with the Bill's blog "Guns and Politics in the United States" about Guns would be harmful to citizen than being good to them. As in the United States, it is being estimated that 270 million to 310 million U.S. civilians own firearms, and that 37% to 42% of the households in the country have at least one gun. I also agree with the Bill talking about it is easy to kill anyone with the gun as it takes no time in pulling a trigger instead of going through the effort of holding a knife to stab someone when the victims can still defend themselves, when the person is too angry to have a conscious mind.
As if we talk about country like India, according to INDIAN ARMS ACT 1959, pepper spray is legal and any weapon/knife blade larger than 5 inch is considered sword and is illegal. Weapons like automatic firearms, semi-automatic weapons can only be owned by policy and military. While weapons like guns, civilians should have license and it is not easy to get such license. But, in the United States, people agree with the idea of keeping guns with them as they can defend themselves when they confront a violent person. I agree with the Bill's listed alternatives like a pepper spray, a police baton, or a Taser instead of owning a gun. It's not easy to remove guns as our constitution allows for gun ownership but, we can definitely slow the usage of it. At last, Bill truly states "The best way to stay away from danger is use common sense."
Friday, December 16, 2016
Thursday, December 1, 2016
Commentary #2 : Creating Jobs Rebuilding America
For most of our history, the U.S. proudly led the world in building infrastructure that grew our economy, gave our business a competitive advantages, and provided our workers a decent standard of living. Sadly, that is no longer the case. Our nation's infrastructure is collapsing, and the American people know it. Every day, they drive on roads with unforgiving potholes and over bridges that are in despair. They wait in traffic jams and ride in railroads and subways that are overcrowded. They see airports bursting at the seams. For too many years, we have dramatically underfunded the physical infrastructure that our economy depends on. Today, the U.S. spends less than 2 percent of GDP on infrastructure, less than at any point in the last twenty years. Meanwhile, Europe spends close to twice our rate, and China spends close to four times our rate. It is no wonder the World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report now ranks our overall infrastructure at 12th in the world-down from 7th place just a decade ago.
Therefore, government should take some steps like Senator Bernie Sanders talked about the Rebuild America Act, which will modernize our infrastructure and importantly, it will support more than thirteen million good-paying jobs, that our economy desperately needs. Government should invest money in infrastructure . American Society of Civil Engineers says we need to invest $3.6 billion by 2020 just to get our nation's infrastructure to a state of good repair. Moreover, there is an economic cost of not acting. Several studies have concluded that our deteriorating infrastructure already costs our economy close to $200 billion per year. Further, investing in infrastructure is not just about "bricks and mortar." As its core, it is about jobs and the economy. While the economy has improved significantly since the worst days of the recession, our nation still faces a major job crisis. We need to create millions of decent paying jobs, and we need to create them now. And infrastructure spending is one of the best ways to do just that.
So, the Acts like The Rebuild America Act would put more than thirteen millions Americans to work in decent-paying jobs. These are jobs in sectors in economy that haven't fully recovered from the recession. like construction, and they are jobs that cannot be shipped offshore or outsourced overseas. Moreover, each and every project will require equipment, supplies and services from architects, engineers, and building materials and supply companies. Thirteen million Americans will spend their hard-earned salaries in their communities, supporting restaurants and local stores. It is no wonder groups from across the political spectrum- from organized labor to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce agree that investing in infrastructure makes sound economic sense. When spending goes up, both GDP and household income grow.
The main point of view behind spending in infrastructure is that Let's create the millions of jobs we desperately need by making tax code fair and just Let's Rebuild America. This will put 13 millions Americans to work which will rise our nation's economy.
Therefore, government should take some steps like Senator Bernie Sanders talked about the Rebuild America Act, which will modernize our infrastructure and importantly, it will support more than thirteen million good-paying jobs, that our economy desperately needs. Government should invest money in infrastructure . American Society of Civil Engineers says we need to invest $3.6 billion by 2020 just to get our nation's infrastructure to a state of good repair. Moreover, there is an economic cost of not acting. Several studies have concluded that our deteriorating infrastructure already costs our economy close to $200 billion per year. Further, investing in infrastructure is not just about "bricks and mortar." As its core, it is about jobs and the economy. While the economy has improved significantly since the worst days of the recession, our nation still faces a major job crisis. We need to create millions of decent paying jobs, and we need to create them now. And infrastructure spending is one of the best ways to do just that.
So, the Acts like The Rebuild America Act would put more than thirteen millions Americans to work in decent-paying jobs. These are jobs in sectors in economy that haven't fully recovered from the recession. like construction, and they are jobs that cannot be shipped offshore or outsourced overseas. Moreover, each and every project will require equipment, supplies and services from architects, engineers, and building materials and supply companies. Thirteen million Americans will spend their hard-earned salaries in their communities, supporting restaurants and local stores. It is no wonder groups from across the political spectrum- from organized labor to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce agree that investing in infrastructure makes sound economic sense. When spending goes up, both GDP and household income grow.
The main point of view behind spending in infrastructure is that Let's create the millions of jobs we desperately need by making tax code fair and just Let's Rebuild America. This will put 13 millions Americans to work which will rise our nation's economy.
Friday, November 18, 2016
Blog #6 : Comment on Increase USA Minimum Wage.
I totally agree with the M. Kristina's point over increasing USA minimum wage in the blog Increase USA Minimum Wage. As the federal minimum wage was introduced in 1938 during the Great Depression under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It was initially set as $0.25 per hour and has been increased by Congress 22 times, recently in 2009 when it went from $6.55 to $7.25 an hour. Proponents of a higher minimum wage state that the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour is too low for anyone to live on; that a higher minimum wage will help create jobs and grow the economy; that the declining value of the minimum wage is one of the primary causes of wage inequality between low and middle-income workers; and that a majority of Americans, include a slim of majority of self-described conservatives, support increasing the minimum wage. I agree with the Kristina saying in the blog that every human's philosophical dream of having happy and successful life in U.S. can be achieved by changing our minimum wage.
By increasing the minimum wage, there will be many benefits to the country and the people living in it. The first would be that millions of Americans would see a pay raise that could go toward meeting their basic needs and living expenses. A recent analysis by CNN was even more aggressive, implying that 5 million Americans would be lifted out of poverty at $10.10 per hour. More workers being able to pay for their basic expenses is a good thing, as it may lead to less reliance on government and state-sponsored financial aid programs. The other benefit would be extra pay in the pockets of some 16.5 million workers could trickle down to retailers and provide a boost to the economy. Since the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 raised the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour starting in 2009, there have been numerous unsuccessful attempts by Congress to raise the wage further. The two main efforts are the Harkin-Miller proposal to raise the wage to $10.10 nd the Living Wage Movement to raise the wage to $15. Even though some of the movement failed but, the fact is increasing U.S. minimum wage concept is thought by everyone.
Thus, increasing the minimum wage of U.S. would help all citizens to achieve the "America Dream" and actually I agree with Kristina's commentary on Increase Minimum Wage Blog.
By increasing the minimum wage, there will be many benefits to the country and the people living in it. The first would be that millions of Americans would see a pay raise that could go toward meeting their basic needs and living expenses. A recent analysis by CNN was even more aggressive, implying that 5 million Americans would be lifted out of poverty at $10.10 per hour. More workers being able to pay for their basic expenses is a good thing, as it may lead to less reliance on government and state-sponsored financial aid programs. The other benefit would be extra pay in the pockets of some 16.5 million workers could trickle down to retailers and provide a boost to the economy. Since the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 raised the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour starting in 2009, there have been numerous unsuccessful attempts by Congress to raise the wage further. The two main efforts are the Harkin-Miller proposal to raise the wage to $10.10 nd the Living Wage Movement to raise the wage to $15. Even though some of the movement failed but, the fact is increasing U.S. minimum wage concept is thought by everyone.
Thus, increasing the minimum wage of U.S. would help all citizens to achieve the "America Dream" and actually I agree with Kristina's commentary on Increase Minimum Wage Blog.
Thursday, November 3, 2016
Commentary #1: Making college debt-free and taking on student debt
In a highly competitive global economy, we need the best- educated workforce in the world. As education becomes a high priority on many people's lists and a determination factor for higher paying jobs, the one setback that can prevent anyone from obtaining a higher education is the cost of attending college. It is insane and counter-productive to the best interests of our country and our future, that thousands of bright young people cannot afford to go to college, and that millions of others leave school with a mountain of debt that burden them for decades. That shortsighted path to the future must end.
The government should make sure that every American who studies hard in school can go to college regardless of how much money their parents make and without going deeply into debt. The government should make tuition free at public colleges and universities as high tuition fees of colleges discourage students from going to college. As last year, Germany eliminated tuition because they believed that charging $13,000 per year was discouraging German students from going to college. Finland, Norway. Sweden and many other countries around the world also offer free college to all of their citizens. If other countries can take this action, so can the United States of America. The federal government should stop making the profit from student loans instead should lower student loan interest rates. The government should provide debt relief to borrowers and should allow refinancing loans at current rates. More financial aid should be given to the low-income students to cover their room and board, books and living expenses.
Hillary Clinton in the third presidential debate of 2016 talks about making college debt-free. In the article "Making college debt-free and taking on student debt" shows Hillary's comprehensive plan to put higher education within reach for all Americans, and take on the crisis of student debt. Every student should have the option to graduate from a public college or university in their state without taking on any student debt. According to her plan, by 2021, families with income up to $125,000 will pay no tuition at in-state four-year public colleges and universities. And from the beginning, every student from a family $85,000 a year or less will be able to go to an in-state four-year public college or university without paying tuition. States will have to step up and invest in higher education, and colleges and universities will be held accountable for the success of their students and for controlling tuition costs. According to reduce the burden for future borrowers, Hillary will significantly cut interest rates so, the government never profits from college student loans. By doing so, the students with low-income who are willing to get a higher education would be benefited. With free colleges and top notch education, it's the perfect combination and opportunity for many who are seeking a better life through higher education.
The government should make sure that every American who studies hard in school can go to college regardless of how much money their parents make and without going deeply into debt. The government should make tuition free at public colleges and universities as high tuition fees of colleges discourage students from going to college. As last year, Germany eliminated tuition because they believed that charging $13,000 per year was discouraging German students from going to college. Finland, Norway. Sweden and many other countries around the world also offer free college to all of their citizens. If other countries can take this action, so can the United States of America. The federal government should stop making the profit from student loans instead should lower student loan interest rates. The government should provide debt relief to borrowers and should allow refinancing loans at current rates. More financial aid should be given to the low-income students to cover their room and board, books and living expenses.
Hillary Clinton in the third presidential debate of 2016 talks about making college debt-free. In the article "Making college debt-free and taking on student debt" shows Hillary's comprehensive plan to put higher education within reach for all Americans, and take on the crisis of student debt. Every student should have the option to graduate from a public college or university in their state without taking on any student debt. According to her plan, by 2021, families with income up to $125,000 will pay no tuition at in-state four-year public colleges and universities. And from the beginning, every student from a family $85,000 a year or less will be able to go to an in-state four-year public college or university without paying tuition. States will have to step up and invest in higher education, and colleges and universities will be held accountable for the success of their students and for controlling tuition costs. According to reduce the burden for future borrowers, Hillary will significantly cut interest rates so, the government never profits from college student loans. By doing so, the students with low-income who are willing to get a higher education would be benefited. With free colleges and top notch education, it's the perfect combination and opportunity for many who are seeking a better life through higher education.
Friday, October 21, 2016
Criticism #2: Millions of Men Are Missing From the Job Market
Economists have long struggled to explain why a growing proportion of men in the prime of their lives are not employed or looking for work. In a recent, The New York Times article by the Editorial Board entitled "Millions of Men Are Missing From the Job Market" published on October 16, 2016, discuss the connection between joblessness and painkiller dependency. The article shows a new study that has found nearly half of unemployed men who are not even seeking for the job depends on painkillers and many of them are disabled. The article makes the logical appeal to the readers by showing statistics about men who are not working and not looking for jobs. It shows that as of last month, 11.4 percent of men between the ages of 25 and 54 or about seven million people were not in the labor force, which means that they were not employed and were not seeking a job. This percentage has been rising for decades as it was less than 4 percent in the 1950s, but the trend accelerated in the last 20 years.
The article provides information about the result of the survey, which was taken between 2010 and this year. It shows that 40 percent of prime working age men who are not in the labor force report having pain that prevents them from taking jobs for which they are qualified. More than a third of the men not in the labor force said that they had difficulty walking or climbing stairs or had another disability. Forty-four percent said that they took painkillers daily and two-thirds of that subset were on prescription medicines. The article also shows report of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which reported that these drugs are less effective and much more addictive than previously thought.
The article adds some view of experts on the connection between chronic joblessness and painkiller dependency. Some experts suspect that frequent use of painkillers is a result of being out of work because people who have no job prospects are more likely to be depressed, become addicted to drugs and alcohol and have other mental health problems. At last, an article says that more research is clearly needed. In the meantime, some things could be done to help workers who've given up. Congress could appropriate money for the opioid addiction treatment and prevention programs they authorized in July. The article shows the solution for this problem by providing the way of targeted investments in infrastructure and education that could create jobs and bolster the skills of local workers. I totally agree with the article's discussion about the connection between chronic joblessness and painkiller dependency as because of unemployment people get addicted to drugs and suffer from several mental problems. As millions of Americans are struggling with pain and missing from the labor market, a crisis that damage families and communities.
The article provides information about the result of the survey, which was taken between 2010 and this year. It shows that 40 percent of prime working age men who are not in the labor force report having pain that prevents them from taking jobs for which they are qualified. More than a third of the men not in the labor force said that they had difficulty walking or climbing stairs or had another disability. Forty-four percent said that they took painkillers daily and two-thirds of that subset were on prescription medicines. The article also shows report of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which reported that these drugs are less effective and much more addictive than previously thought.
The article adds some view of experts on the connection between chronic joblessness and painkiller dependency. Some experts suspect that frequent use of painkillers is a result of being out of work because people who have no job prospects are more likely to be depressed, become addicted to drugs and alcohol and have other mental health problems. At last, an article says that more research is clearly needed. In the meantime, some things could be done to help workers who've given up. Congress could appropriate money for the opioid addiction treatment and prevention programs they authorized in July. The article shows the solution for this problem by providing the way of targeted investments in infrastructure and education that could create jobs and bolster the skills of local workers. I totally agree with the article's discussion about the connection between chronic joblessness and painkiller dependency as because of unemployment people get addicted to drugs and suffer from several mental problems. As millions of Americans are struggling with pain and missing from the labor market, a crisis that damage families and communities.
Thursday, October 6, 2016
Criticism #1: How Trump would stimulate the U.S. economy
As we all know that the United States is the world's largest national economy in nominal terms. In a recent, the Washington Post article by Peter Navarro and Wilbur Ross entitled "How Trump would stimulate the U.S. economy" published on September 23, 2016,shows how Trump's plan would be growth-inducing for U.S. economy. Authors describe different strategies of Trump which would stimulate U.S. economy. They make the argument that how Hillary Clinton's economic plan would not improve economic ills over Trump's plan which would generate millions of traditional jobs and trillions of dollars in additional income and tax revenue.
Peter Navarro is a business professor at UC-Irvine. Wilbur Ross is an international private equity investor. Both are senior policy advisors to the Trump campaign. They make a logical appeal in the article by showing statistics of GDP growth since from 1947. The article also shows that 43 million Americans suffer in poverty whereas 4.9 percent unemployment rate in the US leads to nearly 1 in 6 men ages 18 to 34 in jail or out of work. Authors claim that Trump's plan would realign corporate incentives so that it would be more profitable to invest in the United States by describing four component's which would drive every nation's GDP and as the United States structural economic problems are primarily focused on the investment and net exports growth drivers. Authors also claim that Trump's plan of cutting the high corporate tax rate, reducing unnecessary regulation and cracking down on trade cheating would make U.S. corporation competitive on domestic soil whereas Clinton's economic plan would not improve that anemic growth but would raise taxes, increase regulation, and impose further restrictions on fossil fuels that would significantly raise energy and electricity costs. Trump plan would also eliminate "trade deficit drag" not just by cracking down on currency manipulation, intellectual theft but would also negotiate new deals and renegotiate bad deals whereas as a poster child of how not to negotiate, there is Clinton's 2012 Korean deal, she promised us 70,000 new jobs. Instead, we have lost 75,000 jobs, and our Korean trade deficit has nearly doubled.
I personally feel that authors have very well explained their point in the article but, I do not totally agree with them claiming that only Trump would stimulate U.S. economy. It might be possible that Clinton would also increase the economic growth of U.S. It might also be possible that media is used to manipulate public opinion over the selection of a president. But, if Trump uses and applies all the strategies listed in the article then it could be said that the United States have rapid economic growth and millions of Americans can go back to work.
Peter Navarro is a business professor at UC-Irvine. Wilbur Ross is an international private equity investor. Both are senior policy advisors to the Trump campaign. They make a logical appeal in the article by showing statistics of GDP growth since from 1947. The article also shows that 43 million Americans suffer in poverty whereas 4.9 percent unemployment rate in the US leads to nearly 1 in 6 men ages 18 to 34 in jail or out of work. Authors claim that Trump's plan would realign corporate incentives so that it would be more profitable to invest in the United States by describing four component's which would drive every nation's GDP and as the United States structural economic problems are primarily focused on the investment and net exports growth drivers. Authors also claim that Trump's plan of cutting the high corporate tax rate, reducing unnecessary regulation and cracking down on trade cheating would make U.S. corporation competitive on domestic soil whereas Clinton's economic plan would not improve that anemic growth but would raise taxes, increase regulation, and impose further restrictions on fossil fuels that would significantly raise energy and electricity costs. Trump plan would also eliminate "trade deficit drag" not just by cracking down on currency manipulation, intellectual theft but would also negotiate new deals and renegotiate bad deals whereas as a poster child of how not to negotiate, there is Clinton's 2012 Korean deal, she promised us 70,000 new jobs. Instead, we have lost 75,000 jobs, and our Korean trade deficit has nearly doubled.
I personally feel that authors have very well explained their point in the article but, I do not totally agree with them claiming that only Trump would stimulate U.S. economy. It might be possible that Clinton would also increase the economic growth of U.S. It might also be possible that media is used to manipulate public opinion over the selection of a president. But, if Trump uses and applies all the strategies listed in the article then it could be said that the United States have rapid economic growth and millions of Americans can go back to work.
Thursday, September 22, 2016
Article #1- Immigrants Aren't Taking American's Job's, New Study Finds.
Hello, everyone!! The most rising question for Americans nowadays :Do Immigrants take jobs from Americans and lower their wages by working for less?
The answer,according to a report by the National Academics of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine was published in article Immigrates Aren't Taking American's Jobs,New Study Finds on September 21,2016 at New York Times written by Julia Preston. The report assembles research from 14 leading economists,demographers and other scholars,including some,like Marta Tienda of Princeton,who write favourably about the impacts of immigration. The Report also said that the long run economic growth in the United States would be considerably dimmed without the contribution of high-skilled immigrants.Also, Hillary Clinton,his democratic rival,takes an upbeat view,saying immigrants contribute the economy whether they are legally here or not,by providing labour for American employers and opening businesses that create jobs for Americans rather than taking them.
The report also gave an answer for the other arisen question that: Do Immigrants burden government budgets? The answer was "more mixed" by Professor Blau. The report clearly answered the question and called immigration "integral to the nation's economic growth"because immigrants bring new ideas and add to an American labour force that would be shrinking without them,helping ensure continued growth into the future. The Article is really worth reading and clearly, answers the question about Immigrants taking American's jobs.
The answer,according to a report by the National Academics of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine was published in article Immigrates Aren't Taking American's Jobs,New Study Finds on September 21,2016 at New York Times written by Julia Preston. The report assembles research from 14 leading economists,demographers and other scholars,including some,like Marta Tienda of Princeton,who write favourably about the impacts of immigration. The Report also said that the long run economic growth in the United States would be considerably dimmed without the contribution of high-skilled immigrants.Also, Hillary Clinton,his democratic rival,takes an upbeat view,saying immigrants contribute the economy whether they are legally here or not,by providing labour for American employers and opening businesses that create jobs for Americans rather than taking them.
The report also gave an answer for the other arisen question that: Do Immigrants burden government budgets? The answer was "more mixed" by Professor Blau. The report clearly answered the question and called immigration "integral to the nation's economic growth"because immigrants bring new ideas and add to an American labour force that would be shrinking without them,helping ensure continued growth into the future. The Article is really worth reading and clearly, answers the question about Immigrants taking American's jobs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)