Mon(k)eys for nothing and the Chimps for free...

After doing the random lives economic exercise in class, I have realized that making ends meet for a family isn’t as easy as I had originally thought. Before doing this project, I assumed that the average American salary for a family of four would have no problem balancing a monthly budget. Boy was I wrong. The mean US (married family of four) income is $68K. This should be enough to support four people, right? A monthly paycheck for this would be about $5,700 before taxes. According to http://www.paycheckcity.com/netpaycalc/netpaycalculator.asp, add up to be around $1,150, making each paycheck come out to be about $4,550. Now, with major expenses of a mortgage, food, utilities, car payments and daycare, there’s not much money left over for other expenses such as clothing, entertainment, college funds, retirement funds and any withstanding loans. In my case, I was able to give myself room to breathe by eliminating daycare costs because I know my family would be able to watch my kids when I need them to because there are so many members of my family and they are all incredibly helpful. I know, however, that everyone isn’t as lucky as me, so I can see how this can get tough. Mind you, we’re still dealing with an average salary. What if we went to the median salary, which is only $50K, or to someone working minimum wage for 40 hours a week? You can imagine how difficult it would be to live off of this.

How can the U.S. help in these situations? There can be anywhere from a socialist “equal shares” approach to a laissez-faire “hands-off” view. The U.S. currently uses “safety net” programs to give aid to those who need it, such as welfare, Medicaid and food stamps. “Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave.” (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg2064.cfm) This shows that to be defined ‘poor’ you don’t have to be living as terrible a life as many presume. I think that this definition needs to be stricter so less money needs to be put into the welfare budget and therefore taxes can be lowered. The welfare system is over-used and corrupted by Americans who would be able to support themselves, but choose not to. Instead, welfare should be given to those who lose their jobs and are in situations where the person cannot recover without outside help.

Additional sources:
http://www.newstrategist.com/productdetails/Spend10pages.pdf

Freedom (he did it again?)

Freedom can be measured in different ways from degrees of freedom in motion to freedom in government. In a socio-governmental aspect, basic rights are needed in order to truly be free. These basic rights include food, shelter, freedom from physical abuse, clothes, and the perspective of being free. For instance, a man who loved math and only wished to do math problems all day could consider himself the ‘free-est’ man in the world if he was able to live in a space big enough to do these problems and live a healthy life. On the other hand, he could be given everything in the world, but be banned from doing math problems. This would cause him great distress and he would feel like a prisoner to whoever banned him from his passion. These basic rights are not being given in China to the Falun Dafa members who are being captured for their spiritual beliefs. Falun Dafa members meet in large groups on the street to do exercises to promote healthy lifestyles. These members are not free since they are not free from the physical abuse of the government. According to one of our speakers, Ms. Chen, these Falun Dafa practitioners are being rounded up and sent to labor camps or killed and exploited for their organs. The Communistic government of China itself isn’t to blame for this; it’s the fear of an overthrow from the masses that is causing the corrupted government officials to react so fiercely. Without For instance, Mr. Song, another speaker, told us that in China he lives a free life. He also added that the only reason that the Falun Dafa members are being detained is because they denounced the Communist Party, thus becoming a threat to the government. In either case, the basic rights would be needed in order to enjoy freedom.

The United States doesn’t have much to worry about in terms of freedom as the government is slowly allowing more ‘freedom.’ For instance, at Renmin University, the students have created their own speaker’s corner where students from all over Beijing come to speak freely on Friday nights. Whether or not this is legal, the government does not step in to stop it, showing signs of leniency in the government. The youth of China, not to mention those attending the Communist’s university, is the future of China and from the steps that they are taking China is headed in the right direction.

In a personal sense, perspective determines whether one is free or not. For instance, a monk who has practiced meditation for 25 years may think he is not free until he reaches nirvana, whereas a high school student is free once the weekend rolls around. It’s not always psychological. A paraplegic may never consider himself to be free again, since he cannot walk. He no longer has the freedom to move freely. The bottom line is that freedom is a very general term that can be applied in many aspects of life, but when used in a governmental aspect basic rights are necessary.

Sources used:
http://www.faluninfo.net/
http://www.falundafa.org/eng/faqs.html#persecution
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5353

Freedom (like Braveheart)

"What elements must be in place for a group of people to consider themselves "free"?"

Freedom can be measured in different ways from degrees of freedom in motion to freedom in government. In a socio-governmental aspect, basic rights are needed in order to truly be free. The basic rights of life include food, shelter, freedom from physical abuse, clothes, etc. These basic rights are not being given in China to the Falun Dafa members who are being captured for their spiritual beliefs. Falun Dafa members meet in large groups on the street to do exercises to promote healthy lifestyles. These members are not free since they are not free from the physical abuse of the government. According to one of our speakers, Ms. Chen, these Falun Dafa practitioners are being rounded up and sent to labor camps or killed and exploited for their organs. The Communism of China isn’t to blame for this; however, it’s the fear of a governmental overthrow from the masses that is causing the government to react so fiercely. For instance, Mr. Song, another speaker, told us that in China he lives a free life. He also added that the only reason that the Falun Dafa members are being detained is because they denounced the Communist Party, thus becoming a threat to the government. In either case, the basic rights would be needed in order to enjoy freedom.

In a personal sense, perspective determines whether one is free or not. For instance, a monk who has practiced meditation for 25 years may think he is not free until he reaches nirvana, whereas a high school student is free once the weekend rolls around. It’s not always psychological. A paraplegic may never consider himself to be free again, since he cannot walk. He no longer has the freedom to move freely. The bottom line is that freedom is a very general term that can be applied in many aspects of life, but when used in a governmental aspect basic rights are necessary.

Political Parties

Take this political quiz (http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html), noting that it is created by the Libertarian party, but that it is supported by other sources. Read the party description below the quiz. Based on this and other quality sources you find, answer the following question in 1 to 2 paragraphs: What political party (does not have to be one of the two largest parties) do you believe would best serve this country and what would be the positive and negative implications for this country if ONLY members of that party were consistently elected. (Assume we still had free and fair elections with viable other parties, but that because the majority always shared your opinion the party of your choice always won every election, not just the presidency.)

Let me start off this blog with a bit of anger (assuming that I properly understand the question at hand), stating that these supposed ‘parties’ aren’t parties at all, but ideologies. For instance, a member of the Republican Party doesn’t necessarily have to be Conservative, though that is the general trend. Nevertheless, I will write this blog referring to the ideologies of Centrism, Conservatism, Liberalism, Statism, and Libertarianism as parties, though they technically aren’t.

Of the five parties, Centrism would be the best party to consistently run the country because they look at all sides of an issue. Since they are in the center, they tend not to vote according to their party, but instead they make a decision based upon the most viable solution. They can choose to act with respect to whichever view would best suit the people of the country. Also, more people would be benefited from this, as they would act in favor of the majority of people every time. This is shown by the mass movement towards centrism, which is in contrast to before where people generally picked a party and stuck with it.

Though Centrism has its many pros, it has its potential downfalls, as one would presume. Since Centrists don’t have specific ideologic views, there is a chance that they may not agree on all topics and therefore be unable to get anything done. This lack of unification can be disputed, however, with the argument that if this was the case, it would happen in modern political parties. For instance, in the Democratic Party, there are the left wing radicals and the more central liberals. These two don’t agree on all subjects, but the Democratic Party is still able to get things done. The Centrist views might fall through if the country comes to a point where major change is needed. Since centrists tend to stay centered, major change might be hard to come by since a centrist, by definition, wouldn’t want to be radical in any direction. A true centrist, however, would want to do what’s best for the country and the people. If major change was needed it would be obvious to those in office and therefore they would do what needs to be done.

If a political party were needed to run the country, the best choice would be Centrists. To be honest, though, I don’t believe this at all. For the country to truly prosper, the political party in power needs to be dynamic to keep the politicians in check. Having to always compete with another party causes politicians to stay with the majority of the people, keeping them away from only relying on their personal views. Also, issues change all the time and if the same political party had majority, the best solution wouldn’t be chosen even if it were centrists.

Sources used:

http://www.centrists.org/

http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/8/3/1/9/pages83192/p83192-3.php

Organic Vs Local Resubmit

The latest hype with regards to food seems to be going “organic.” It has taken off so quickly that even Wal-Mart has begun to sell products that are “organic,” but what does that mean? According to Wikipedia, “Organic foods are grown without the use of conventional pesticides, artificial fertilizers, human waste, or sewage sludge, and that they were processed without ionizing radiation or food additives.” There are very strict regulations set and enforced by the National Organic Program (NOP). People, however, have been debating if it’s better to eat organic foods, or to buy locally.

Organic foods are great due to their reduced pesticide residue as compared to conventional foods. They also allegedly taste better than conventionally grown foods. The downfall of buying organic lies in the fact that a person living in New York may be buying organic from California. With this being the case, that person now has a choice of buying the organically grown fruit from California which is more expensive and used more foreign oil to be transported across the nation or buy a locally grown fruit that was grown by a local farmer. If this consumer buys organic, they’re ignoring the energy crisis, whereas if they buy local, they’re supporting the local economy, but aren’t getting the product that they desire. This choice is up to the consumer, butbut personally, I’d buy locally to stimulate the economy and conserve energy..

Now there’s also the problem caused by big farms which are contributing to the upsweep of “big organic,” which is just organic foods mass-produced. These “big organic” products pose problems for small farmers because Wal-Mart has announced that they will offer their organic products for only 10% more than conventional foods, whereas now consumers are paying about 50% more for organic. How is Wal-Mart going to be able to sell these foods for so cheap? According to National Geographic, they will be squeezing suppliers to lower their costs and add pressure to weaken regulations on organic standards. Thus, consumers will be able to buy organic foods cheaplyly, but they really won’t be that much better than conventional foods anymore. The House of Agriculture is opening its eyes to this fact and is taking action. On April 18, 2007, there was the first ever meeting dedicated to discussing where organic agriculture can go and what is holding it back. They want to ensure 100% commitment to the integrity of organic foods, while organic agriculture is thriving.

Another problem with farms going organic is the fact that organic farms produce anywhere from 20-40% less than conventional farms. With this being said, if 50% of pre-existing farms made the switch to growing solely organic foods, there would be 10-20% less food being grown. This is a big problem. According to Cosmos magazine, it is estimated that if only organic farming was used the current population would likely starve.

Big organic could potentially lower the quality of organic products by running small high quality farmers out of business while mass-producing lower quality organic foods, but much more cheaply than before. Personally, I’m not a consumer of organic foods. SSsince my parents don’t buy it,,; I’ve never been exposed to it. I do, however, believe that if you have to choose between local and organic products, go local and most of all avoid buying big organic products the most. If worst comes to worst, resort back to buying conventional food like everyone did before the craze, but don’t buy big organic.

Organic Vs Local

The latest hype with regards to food seems to be going “organic.” It has taken off so quickly that even Wal-Mart has begun to sell products that are “organic,” but what does that mean? According to Wikipedia, “Organic foods are grown without the use of conventional pesticides, artificial fertilizers, human waste, or sewage sludge, and that they were processed without ionizing radiation or food additives.” There are very strict regulations set and enforced by the National Organic Program (NOP). People, however, have been debating if it’s better to eat organic foods, or to buy locally.

Organic foods are great due to their reduced pesticide residue as compared to conventional foods. They also allegedly taste better than conventionally grown foods. The downfall of buying organic lies in the fact that a person living in New York may be buying organic from California. With this being the case, that person now has a choice of buying the organically grown fruit from California which is more expensive and used more foreign oil to be transported across the nation or buy a locally grown fruit that was grown by a local farmer. If this consumer buys organic, they’re ignoring the energy crisis, whereas if they buy local, they’re supporting the local economy, but aren’t getting the product that they desire. This choice is up to the consumer, personally, I’d buy locally to stimulate the economy and conserve energy.

Now there’s also the problem caused by big farms which are contributing to the upsweep of “big organic,” which is just organic foods mass-produced. These “big organic” products pose problems for small farmers because Wal-Mart has announced that they will offer their organic products for only 10% more than conventional foods, whereas now consumers are paying about 50% more for organic. How is Wal-Mart going to be able to sell these foods for so cheap? According to National Geographic, they will be squeezing suppliers to lower their costs and add pressure to weaken regulations on organic standards. Thus, consumers will be able to buy organic foods cheap, but they really won’t be that much better than conventional foods anymore.

Big organic could potentially lower the quality of organic products by running small high quality farmers out of business while mass-producing lower quality organic foods, but much more cheaply than before. Personally, I’m not a consumer of organic foods since my parents don’t buy it; I’ve never been exposed to it. I do, however, believe that if you have to choose between local and organic products, go local and most of all avoid buying big organic products the most. If worst comes to worst, resort back to buying conventional food like everyone did before the craze, but don’t buy big organic.

Government and Economy Views

The United States government is arguably the best government in the world because of its ability to change and fix the problems within and democratic power within the people. Since the start of America it has been this way, with the creation of three branches for checks and balances and splitting the legislative branch into two parts, the Senate and the House of Representatives, to equally represent states.

As of recently, however, this self fix approach has seemed to run out, perhaps because of the president himself. Since 2001, we have been in a war in Iraq with an undefined enemy and still have no plan of returning troops to home. At first, the supposed objective was to find the weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) that the terrorists in Iraq were building and disable their operations. Now, there have been no WMDs found, nor have we planned an escape route. We can’t just leave Iraq as quickly as we went in because the Iraq government would collapse. Instead, we should be slowly returning our troops to home as we train the Iraqi troops how to deal with their internal conflicts. If another objective is necessary before departure, it should be clearly stated what it is and how it is going to be accomplished, then executed as quickly as possible.

When President Bush entered office, he was left with the highest surplus in U.S. history from President Clinton. Now, the economy is failing and seems to be spiraling downward uncontrollably as big businesses are beginning to bankrupt and the U.S. has the largest deficit in their history, even more than the Great Depression. Now, insurance giant AIG and mortgage lenders Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are on the brink of bankruptcy. The government’s solution to the problem is to bail them out by lending them money to keep them out of bankruptcy and taking over while they are dismantled. A potential fix for the economy would be to increase taxes on people and businesses making loads of money. There should be tax breaks, however, for companies based on percentage of American workers because this will lead to more money circulating in the American economy. Once the economy is stable again, there should be laws created restricting pollution and enforcing efficiencies. Businesses should be rewarded for going green and get tax breaks as an incentive.

On the positive side, there are many good things to having a Democratic government, especially voting. With political parties, however, people focus too much on the party itself as opposed to the individual candidate and his or her views. Controversial issues like abortion and the death penalty can be discussed and laws changed based on votes. (Personally, I’m pro-choice and pro death penalty, but it really bugs me when people are against the death penalty, yet pro-choice. How can you allow a fetus to be killed, but allow a murderer to live?) Also, the government is able to provide mechanisms to correct societal wrongs through means of litigation, media and enough freedom of speech for people to be able to convey important ideas.

The government and economy need to adjust in order to sustain themselves as times change and the U.S. is good at this. With a new president coming into office in January, there should be plenty of changes on the drawing board.