What is the future of democracy? Is it a realistic option?

I think that the future of democracy is good, or at least as good as it has been. I dont think that it is a perfect system, but it is the system that has worked for us as a Nation forever and I think that people respect that. We have a government that is 'ran by the people'. I think that this gives people comfort as well as hope. If they have an equal say in whats going on then they are making a difference, or at least doing their part. I do however think that people take advantage of democracy, including me. People complain about government, politics, taxes and all sorts of other things that are happening in our government, yet they do not do anything about it. Our democracy, the way it is set up does give people the opportunity to have a say, however this can not happen if the 'people' are to lazy to go out and vote, or to lazy to be informed about what we are voting on.

So yes, I think it is a realistic option, but I dint think that it is realistic that people will ever be happy with it, even though we could have so many worse options in the way a government is run.

The following link is for an article that was from back during the last presidential election. And I think that no matter what party you are with or what candidate you voted for or supported, you can agree with this article and President Obama and voter apathy.

He states “making change happen is hard” and “people need to shake off this lethargy, people need to buck up”. He is talking about voters, making an effort to go out and vote, and to be informed voters.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/28/politics/main6907246.shtml

Change doesn’t just happen, we have to make it happen.

Voter Apathy cartoon 2 - search ID njun89

R

What is the process to develop an economic policy that provides services and sustainability?

Week 13 Blog

After reading this chapter I see that building and maintaining a good economy with a steady working economic policy is very complicated. It takes many different parts of government to make it run and there is different money involved. In our economy uses taxes, fiscal policy, monetary policy and regulation to make it all work. The way all of this fully works is still a little confusing to me as the chapter has so much information, but I know that these thing keep the money moving in our economy. 

After doing some research on the economy and economic policy, and getting many results, due to the recession, I see that a lot outside of our own government affects our economy as well. Things that are happening around the world with countries that we import and export to affect our economy as well. Some of these things is obviously gas, as well as food, and material products. Currently a war over seas in Libya is affecting our gas prices, or weather affecting the crops of food that we buy.

The double natural disasters that hit Japan will have some sort of impact on the US and our economy. However, only 6 percent of our exports and imports are to and from Japan, so even though we will be affected, it will not be that much. According to 9 news the conflicts in the Middle East will have much more impact on us than Japans natural disasters.

http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/142251/37/How-Will-Disaster-In-Japan-Impact-US-Economy

Below is a link to a cartoon that I found that was regarding Natural disaster and wealth and power. 

http://www.cartoonstock.com/cart.asp?from=stock&basket=yes

How should a nation-state develop its foreign policy in accordance to its values and in connection to the development of its domestic policy?

This is a hard question for me because I still don’t fully understand how it all works, even after reading about it. But I think that we have to be very carefully when making alliances, and when deciding when to support those allies and when to stand down. I think that when regarding the economy it is best to have trade alliances with many. However, when alliances bring on war this can be a very costly situation to our country.
I don’t think that we should be getting involved in a war unless it is directly involving our country. I think that we must weigh the pros and cons of supporting other countries and their battles before we get involved. And have to be aware of the benefits they can bring to us if we ever need their assistance in a war. But like I said this is a difficult situation for me to comment on because I am still a little confused on how it works.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/FSp-LU7OG3U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This link is to a video I watched regarding foreign policy in the US and war. I think that some of his opinions are a little far out there, but I agree on one thing he talks about and this is that Washington likes war.

How does a government facilitate comprehensive care for its constituents without sacrificing equity?

When reading this chapter and after reading all the discussion, it seems to me that we focus a lot on the people who take advantage of the system, which I totally agree with; however, I would also like to say that the system is not perfect either. In some ways, the system holds people back from moving forward when they are presented the opportunity.

In my Into to SW class we did a project that was focused on helping a woman who was using federal assistance for child care and food stamps who was being offered a promotion at work. The catch of this situation is that the position paid $1.00 more than she currently made, which would put her over the income limit to receive her government assistance, however $1.00 more if income per hour (fulltime=$160.00 a month) is still not enough to cover her and her two kids grocery needs, let alone childcare.

I don’t remember what our group decided regarding helping this woman. Its kind of a no win situation. We could advise her to either not take the promotion and stay off government assistance, while being held down in a low paying position forever just to be able to get by. Or do we tell them to take the promotion and try to get by while improving herself by moving up in the corporate world? Keep in kind that if she takes the promotion she will not meet her monthly income needed to live if she now has to pay for food and childcare.

I have thought a lot about this activity recently. As you all know I just has a baby 3 weeks ago. My first. I go back to work the week after the semester is over, and the baby will be going with me. Thank God!--- Because infant care, per house, cost more than I make an hour, but make more than the CCAP income limit. Therefore, if I couldn’t take my baby to work with me, since I have no family in Denver, and cant receive CCAP, I would either have to quite my job, or pay to go to work.

So, as I agree that far to many people take advantage of the system, sometimes the system creates some of the problem itself.

This is a cartoon that I found kinda funny because I thinik that people dont realize that they are getting some form of assistance while also talk bad about others that do. There are many different types of assistance other than food stamps and housing.



I also found this cartoon which reminded me of many of the other students post for this weeks discussion in regard to people continually having children even though they cant afford them.

How does the U.S. Congress, as it exists in its current structure, support and/or limit authentic representation?

Unfortunately, I must start out by saying sorry, because I’m sure my opinion on our government and the way it is run is becoming redundant, since in every post I go back to the fact that I fell our government is run and influenced purely by money, who has it, where and how they can get it, and who is going to fund their campaign or special interest. I think that just like the idea of the presidency, the idea of congress, the senate, and checks and balances was all set up with the idea that it would always support the ideal democracy, and that our founding fathers truly did have our, the people’s, interest at heart, and wanted to make this the best, and most honest place to live in the world. Well, they did succeed, to an extent, because I think there is no way they could have predicted how things would have progressed the way they have. However, I think that congress, as it is today, limits authentic representation. Congress today, to, is based on political party influence, special interests, and personal campaigns. Congress members must stay true to the party that voted them in, and this is not always taking the side of the people on issues. They must also think about their own campaign and what is going to get them reelected in the next election, who will fund it. And of course, it is all about the money in the end.
Like other, I feel that this class has opened my eyes on how our government is run, I always thought it was centered around money, but this class has made me more aware of all the other parts of government that are not what people think it is.

In what ways does the U.S. Presidency support and limit the formation of an ideal democracy?

I think that the idea of a president originally was made to fully support our country as the ideal democracy. I think that expecting a president (a human being) to be perfect is our country’s first mistake. No human, not even the president is perfect, therefore will always have limits in the public’s eyes. I think that the president supports a democracy because he is not able to make decisions on his own, he must get approved by congress and senate, if it goes there. He is also voted in by the public, therefore representing what the majority of the American people believe in, and that is the face of our country to the rest of the world. I think that a president (individuals) have limited a democracy by taking advantage of their position and doing things there own way, instead of how they a supposed to be done, like the examples givin in the book regarding checks and balances. But I think these are individuals and not fair to say this of every president.

Above was my original post for the discussion question for the class.

After doing some more reading I think that we expect to much from presidents. I realize they know this is a large job when they run for president, the largest job in the country, but can one person actually fulfill the job description to the fullest without limits? I think that it is important to remember this when we are talking about everything that the president has not been able to deliver. I don’t think we should lower our expectations of our president, but I think we may want to re-evaluate the way we critique the president 

I found an article about the presidents that was written about a museum exhibit that was made to represent all of the U.S. presidents. Appropriately the exhibit is named ‘The American Presidency : A Glorious Burden’.

Smithsonian Secretary Lawrence M. Small says, "We ask a lot of our presidents. We have expected them to be father, brother, general, diplomat, arbitrator, economist, pitchman, publicist, cheerleader and a dozen things more. We take for granted that the same person who has the qualities to command armies and deploy an arsenal of awful force will also be available to launch a baseball season. This exhibition shows all these aspects of the job." I think that Mr. Small’s statement expresses the enormous amount of responsibility that is laid upon the president, and this is of course no the end of all the expectations we have for the president. Mr. Crew a historian of the museum also sates that, "There was no precedent for the American presidency when the framers of the Constitution created the office in 1787.Yet these revolutionaries—who distrusted centralized authority—entrusted near-monarchical powers to this one office. I hope that visitors will come away from this exhibition with a better understanding of this fundamental contradiction, and how it has given rise to conflicting impulses and realities that continue to shape our country’s political life even today."
http://americanhistory.si.edu/presidency/6a.html

The White House has been the scene of many events in the history of our nation. Here the President holds meetings that decide national and international policy, signs new legislation, and carries out the many duties of the office. Here, too, the President and First Family entertain guests and live their private lives, as every President except George Washington has done.

http://clinton1.nara.gov/White_House/Tours/White_House/Welcome.html

How does individual people and groups of people influence the demoratic process

I agree with the other post in that we the people of America a very lucky to have a say in what happens here in our country, and who is running things. However I am torn at the same time to say how much individuals actually impact what goes on. I think at a state level we have much more influence on what happens than at a national level. Which is shown in the book on the first page of chapter 5 (pg.101), when stating that George Bush won the presidential election by electoral votes, but lost the popular vote (individual peoples votes). So even though our individual votes decide who represents our state, and what party our state affiliates with, this does not always guarantee that the people we elect to represent out state will vote the way that the majority of the state wants. It can depend on many things, such as the final candidates that are chosen after the primary, where these candidates lie regarding certain issues, and money. I also think that money is a greater influence than anything in our country and who, where and how it is being spent. I do however think that the media has a great influence on how individuals think regarding politics, which then directly effects how politics are run. Campaigns that reach more people and in positive way are more likely to have results in followers.