In the article "In Grim Job Market, Student Loans Are a Costly Burden", author Tara Siegel Bernard touches on a subject that is very important to everyone trying to get an education. Borrowing money to pay for education means that at some point you will have to start repaying those loans. For most of us that are not fortunate enough to be able to pay for our education without borrowing, we have a daunting task in front of us. We have to repay those loans after we graduate. The article recommends that you don't borrow more money than you expect to make as a starting salary at the job you hope to land after you graduate.
The problem facing recent graduates today is the lack of quality jobs in this time of recession. Graduates are coming out to find the job markets to be not very friendly. Companies are downsizing and cutting back in response to the flailing economy, and not that many jobs are out there to be found. The loans still come due, however, and many grads are taking whatever jobs they can find in order to just make ends meet. When you add in loan payments, many just can't make the payments.
Student loans are some of the most rock-solid loans that can be obtained. They have to be paid back, and even bankruptcy can't remove those debts. Most federal loans are impossible to escape, and private loans are also difficult to get relief from. Default on these loans and you can have your wages garnished at up to 15%, and tax refunds can be taken. This is an unfortunate reality for some.
It is very disheartening to find out that your education that you worked so hard to get won't make you enough money to pay back the loans you took out to pay for said education. There are some alternatives for payment, even some that forgive debt after a set number of years of making reduced payments. I guess the moral of the story is get a good paying job if you are going to borrow money to pay for the education.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
He's Trying, But Not Everybody Wants to Play Ball
In the article "Trust Is Issue, Pakistan Tells U.S.", author Jane Perlez points out the strained relationship between our government and the Pakistanis, especially in relation to attacks by the U.S. on suspected Al Qaeda forces in Pakistan's tribal regions. This tension comes somewhat on the heels of the President's mildly successful trip to Europe, where he hoped to repair damaged international relationships and garner support for the war against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Two government officials in particular are the focus of the minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi's ire, Adm. Mike Mullen and Richard C. Holbrooke. The minister is angry over the issue of the U.S. using remote drones to attack Al Qaeda positions in tribal areas adjacent to Afghanistan. According to the minister, "the bottom line is the question of trust". This does not bode well for relations that are already strained in that part of the world. The Pakistani military leaders and intelligence operations are also upset about U.S. military leader's suggestion that the Pakistani intelligence agency was still supporting Taliban fighters that cross over the border to attack American troops. Pakistan and the U.S. have long been allies, and Washington still plans to back Pakistan.
Tension in the middle east is not something anyone needs right now, especially the U.S. We are trying to get out of an unsuccessful war in Iraq, and have our hands full in Afghanistan. We need all the allies that we can get in this region, especially if we ever plan to leave there in force. U.S. officials should plan on coming clean on past issues, with respect to the safety of national security. We must rebuild these relationships in order to be successful in this region of the world.
I personally feel that our role in Middle Eastern affairs should be limited. Most all of them hate us for interfering in their lives, and trying to force Western morals on to people who are not at all interested in fitting in the American picture of a "good neighbor". There has been war in the middle east for thousands of years, and I don't see it stopping any time soon. I agree that we can't let it become a launching pad for attacks against the U.S., but I also don't think we should plan on occupying the area with military force for the next couple thousand years. Maybe there isn't any decent answer to this problem. I'm probably not the first person to come to that conclusion.
Tension in the middle east is not something anyone needs right now, especially the U.S. We are trying to get out of an unsuccessful war in Iraq, and have our hands full in Afghanistan. We need all the allies that we can get in this region, especially if we ever plan to leave there in force. U.S. officials should plan on coming clean on past issues, with respect to the safety of national security. We must rebuild these relationships in order to be successful in this region of the world.
I personally feel that our role in Middle Eastern affairs should be limited. Most all of them hate us for interfering in their lives, and trying to force Western morals on to people who are not at all interested in fitting in the American picture of a "good neighbor". There has been war in the middle east for thousands of years, and I don't see it stopping any time soon. I agree that we can't let it become a launching pad for attacks against the U.S., but I also don't think we should plan on occupying the area with military force for the next couple thousand years. Maybe there isn't any decent answer to this problem. I'm probably not the first person to come to that conclusion.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Is the Senate Broken?
In the article "The Senate is Broken", author Christopher Hayes asks the question that is on a lot of people's minds here lately: Is the Senate Broken? HE mentions the founding fathers and their intentions to keep the mob from ruling, while also keeping out the riff-Raff, and their apparent feeling that maybe we would have more trouble governing ourselves than we thought. In most respects, they were successful in their goals. However, one aspect has not been so successful, the Senate. It has grown more undemocratic over the years and the imbalance of representation is much more severe. According to Hayes' article, California has 68 times the population of Wyoming, but equal representation in the Senate. Filibusters have evolved into "de facto super majority requirement", and one individual can essentially bring the entire body to a halt. Is it time to look at our processes and make some changes?
This article was appropriate this week due to our classroom viewing of the Bill Moyers Journal this week. Some of the same points that were brought up on that journal are made in the article from The Nation mentioned above. The fact that people in all media sources are arriving at the same conclusion lends credence to the thought that maybe it is time to evaluate our processes and possibly change some aspects of government.
I personally feel that the founding fathers are probably rolling in their graves. They never could have anticipated the future we live in now, nor could they have anticipated the way that money makes the world go around. The idea of the republic and democracy still thrives, but it is mired in the endless money grabbing that goes with politics these days. It's a shame that something so idealistic could be bastardized by monetary concerns, but that is a fact of life in this day and time. Special interest groups and lobbyists make large campaign donations, and in return, expect consideration from their pocket Senators in the form of legislation and earmarks. Rarely is it the public best interest that Senators move and shake. The fact that any overhaul in the system would probably have to originate in the body of government that needs to be overhauled means that it will probably never happen.
This article was appropriate this week due to our classroom viewing of the Bill Moyers Journal this week. Some of the same points that were brought up on that journal are made in the article from The Nation mentioned above. The fact that people in all media sources are arriving at the same conclusion lends credence to the thought that maybe it is time to evaluate our processes and possibly change some aspects of government.
I personally feel that the founding fathers are probably rolling in their graves. They never could have anticipated the future we live in now, nor could they have anticipated the way that money makes the world go around. The idea of the republic and democracy still thrives, but it is mired in the endless money grabbing that goes with politics these days. It's a shame that something so idealistic could be bastardized by monetary concerns, but that is a fact of life in this day and time. Special interest groups and lobbyists make large campaign donations, and in return, expect consideration from their pocket Senators in the form of legislation and earmarks. Rarely is it the public best interest that Senators move and shake. The fact that any overhaul in the system would probably have to originate in the body of government that needs to be overhauled means that it will probably never happen.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Stimulus Bucks for New Projects
In the article "Companies Pretty Up Prices to Win Stimulus Projects", author Micheal Cooper touches on the subject of construction companies' strategy of slashing their prices on the upcoming first round of stimulus projects that are being funded by the federal stimulus plan. Most businesses are doing the same thing, trying to drum up business in tough economic times. The construction business has been hit particularly hard, with the collapse of the U.S. housing market. These companies are desperate to win the bids on these projects, and are bidding lower than most expect in order to accomplish these goals. In some states bids are coming in 15% to 25% lower than expected by state officials. This is a good thing for taxpayers, seeing as how they are funding these projects. The lower the bids, the more work can be done and the higher the value for the taxpayer's dollar. This also means that if the bids keep coming in lower, the stimulus money can go much further than initially expected. This means that more roads can be built, more bridges repaired, more tasks can be completed with the same amount of money. The basic rules of supply and demand dictate the lower prices. Many construction workers are out of work, so the work comes cheaper when it is available. This also brings up concerns that these low bids may not be totally accurate and may not reflect the true cost of the project. Contractors can sometimes underbid their competition, then try to squeeze out a profit by changing things that drive up the price and delay the project. This is nothing new, it's been going on in the industry for years.
This stimulus project is very important to the turn around of the slumping economy. Much like FDR's New Deal, this will put people back to work. Working people can buy goods and services, and feel more comfortable making major purchases. Such purchases can be cars or houses, both which are suffering in such harsh economic times. In order for things to turn around, this stimulus plan must work much like it did during the Great Depression years. Much of the current infrastructure in the U.S. was built during these years, along with the founding of many institutions that we take for granted today. Social Security and FDIC are two of the major programs started during the New Deal era.
Personally, I feel that the administration is doing a good job trying to stimulate the economy. The worst thing that they could have done is nothing. I feel that the worst may be behind us. It may be premature to say that, but I feel optimistic for the first time in a long time. With stocks seeming to stabilize and the possibility of the government relieving financial institutions of their toxic assets, we may actually be able to turn things around.
This stimulus project is very important to the turn around of the slumping economy. Much like FDR's New Deal, this will put people back to work. Working people can buy goods and services, and feel more comfortable making major purchases. Such purchases can be cars or houses, both which are suffering in such harsh economic times. In order for things to turn around, this stimulus plan must work much like it did during the Great Depression years. Much of the current infrastructure in the U.S. was built during these years, along with the founding of many institutions that we take for granted today. Social Security and FDIC are two of the major programs started during the New Deal era.
Personally, I feel that the administration is doing a good job trying to stimulate the economy. The worst thing that they could have done is nothing. I feel that the worst may be behind us. It may be premature to say that, but I feel optimistic for the first time in a long time. With stocks seeming to stabilize and the possibility of the government relieving financial institutions of their toxic assets, we may actually be able to turn things around.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
New Frontiers for Research
In the article "Obama Reversing Stem Cell Limits Bush Imposed", authors David Stout and Gardiner Harris discuss President Obama's decision to reverse the Bush administration's limits on federal financing embryonic stem cell research as part of his plan to separate science and politics. As a candidate for the Presidency, Obama was a supporter of stem cell research, so this announcement is not really that big of a surprise. The topic itself, however, is one surrounded by controversy and strong opinions from both sides of the issue. This move is part of Obama's plan to return to "sound science" and the separation of science and politics.
The proponents of stem cell research are expected to try to push the process through so that they can apply for the grant money before September 2010, the date in which the health institutes must commit the last of the $10.4 billion given to the N.I.H. as part of the economic stimulus program. They claim that "embryonic stem cells are capable of developing into any type of cell in the body, many scientists believe that they may one day be able to provide tissues to replace worn-out organs or non functioning cells and, thus, offer powerful new treatments for diabetes, heart disease, Parkinson’s disease and other ailments". Treatments for severe injury, like spinal cord damage, could also result from this research.
Opponents argue that since the cells come from human embryos, they are essentially human beings and the harvest and experimentation on them is tantamount to murder. This is often a deeply personal issue for most who oppose the experimentation. They also argue that other cells, such as those found in amniotic fluid or placental tissue could also work for this research. No matter what is decided, the passion and debate about this issue will not stop any time soon.
The separation of science and politics is the big issue here. There is a moral argument here, and while the government should always consider the moral implications of their actions, I feel it is important to also realize that the correct moral decision is not always going to make the most people happy. This is similar to the separation of church and state. The argument that embryonic cells are human beings is more a religious argument than a scientific one. The debate of the existence of a "soul" in a cell is not, in my opinion, a valid scientific argument. I feel that this decision to separate politics will set a tone for this presidency that will have a positive effect on this administration.
As a person who suffers from a currently incurable neurological disease, stem cell research holds particular interest for me. I was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis in September of last year, and the possibility that stem cell research could possibly mean that doctors could someday repair damaged organs or tissue is of particular interest to me. I feel that the petty argument that some have about harvesting stem cells from embryos that are going to be discarded is insignificant in light of the possibilities that this research holds for people who stand to gain so much. I personally feel that this is a defining moment of President Obama's legacy, and it makes me eager to see what else lies in store for the country under his guidance.
The proponents of stem cell research are expected to try to push the process through so that they can apply for the grant money before September 2010, the date in which the health institutes must commit the last of the $10.4 billion given to the N.I.H. as part of the economic stimulus program. They claim that "embryonic stem cells are capable of developing into any type of cell in the body, many scientists believe that they may one day be able to provide tissues to replace worn-out organs or non functioning cells and, thus, offer powerful new treatments for diabetes, heart disease, Parkinson’s disease and other ailments". Treatments for severe injury, like spinal cord damage, could also result from this research.
Opponents argue that since the cells come from human embryos, they are essentially human beings and the harvest and experimentation on them is tantamount to murder. This is often a deeply personal issue for most who oppose the experimentation. They also argue that other cells, such as those found in amniotic fluid or placental tissue could also work for this research. No matter what is decided, the passion and debate about this issue will not stop any time soon.
The separation of science and politics is the big issue here. There is a moral argument here, and while the government should always consider the moral implications of their actions, I feel it is important to also realize that the correct moral decision is not always going to make the most people happy. This is similar to the separation of church and state. The argument that embryonic cells are human beings is more a religious argument than a scientific one. The debate of the existence of a "soul" in a cell is not, in my opinion, a valid scientific argument. I feel that this decision to separate politics will set a tone for this presidency that will have a positive effect on this administration.
As a person who suffers from a currently incurable neurological disease, stem cell research holds particular interest for me. I was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis in September of last year, and the possibility that stem cell research could possibly mean that doctors could someday repair damaged organs or tissue is of particular interest to me. I feel that the petty argument that some have about harvesting stem cells from embryos that are going to be discarded is insignificant in light of the possibilities that this research holds for people who stand to gain so much. I personally feel that this is a defining moment of President Obama's legacy, and it makes me eager to see what else lies in store for the country under his guidance.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Change, Change, Change......
The New York Times article "Climate of Change" by Paul Krugman addresses some of the changes we have seen with the new administration, and some we hope to see in the future. Everyone is focused on the massive stimulus bill that was just passed, but there are other concerns that President Obama has addressed in his early days in office. If he can do things similar to getting this bill passed, we may indeed be in store for some fundamental changes in the way things are done in this country. President Obama's plan to reduce the deficit in his first term is commendable, and according to Krugman, plausible. How this will work while reforming health care and taming big banks remains to be seen. While there have been a few disappointments, overall the direction seems to be a positive one. From generating new revenue while focusing on the environment, there is the possibility that the new President's plan just might work. To quote Krugman, "these new priorities are laid out in a document whose clarity and plausibility seem almost incredible to those of us who grew accustomed to reading Bush-era budgets". This is promising for all of us who have learned to be wary of promises made my the commander-in-chief over the last eight years. When the current financial crisis passes and we get out of Iraq, the budget should improve dramatically. We are spending about 100 billion a year fighting the war in Iraq, so there's a sizable chunk right there. According to Krogan, the one we must get under control is the ever-increasing cost of health care.
This is a promising time for the country. Most people have aligned themselves behind the new president, in hopes that he can rescue us from this dire economic slump. In order for us to remain on top of the food chain politically, we have to right the ship and continue to be the standard bearer for the rest of the world. While not everyone agrees with that assessment, I feel that we should be the shining light that other countries in the world aspire to. We have been champions against oppression and aggression for nearly a century, and I feel that we must keep that mantle and fix things within our own borders.
I personally feel that President Obama can do the things he says he can do, provided he gets the support he needs from Congress. If there's one thing his predecessor did for him, it was remove some of the barriers and give him more power and less oversight than any president before him has ever had. I don't necessarily agree with everything that the new President plans on, but I agree with his assessment of the seriousness of the situation, and the fact that it must be fixed, now. I just hope that he doesn't stumble or falter along the way, and my hopes are that he will be remembered as the President who saved the most powerful nation in the world from itself.
This is a promising time for the country. Most people have aligned themselves behind the new president, in hopes that he can rescue us from this dire economic slump. In order for us to remain on top of the food chain politically, we have to right the ship and continue to be the standard bearer for the rest of the world. While not everyone agrees with that assessment, I feel that we should be the shining light that other countries in the world aspire to. We have been champions against oppression and aggression for nearly a century, and I feel that we must keep that mantle and fix things within our own borders.
I personally feel that President Obama can do the things he says he can do, provided he gets the support he needs from Congress. If there's one thing his predecessor did for him, it was remove some of the barriers and give him more power and less oversight than any president before him has ever had. I don't necessarily agree with everything that the new President plans on, but I agree with his assessment of the seriousness of the situation, and the fact that it must be fixed, now. I just hope that he doesn't stumble or falter along the way, and my hopes are that he will be remembered as the President who saved the most powerful nation in the world from itself.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Will Stocks Ever Recover?
In the article "Worries Over Banks Keep Pulling Stock Markets Back", author Jack Healy touches on the scary possibility of the nationalization of banks, or government controlled banking. This is very disturbing to many, but Wall Street relaxed somewhat with the Obama administration's reassurance that they still strongly believe in a privately held banking system. That is, with proper regulation from the government. All three major markets took major hits and finished low. The misery isn't just confined to the US. Markets from eastern Europe and Asia suffered as well, due to investors fears that government controlled banks would essentially wipe out shareholders. Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, had this to say about the current situation: “I don’t welcome that at all, but I could see how it’s possible it may happen,” Mr. Dodd said. “I’m concerned that we may end up having to do that, at least for a short time.” Banks are short on cash and don't have the cash to lend. There is no solution, and time is just making it worse.
The nationalization of banks is indeed a scary prospect. While it may seem necessary right now, even a good idea, it's a little too close to socialism to suit many. Government control of banks to socialism is probably stretching it a little bit, but it is still a slippery slope. This country was founded on the belief of capitalism and free trade, and one would wonder what the founding fathers would think if they saw the mess that we are in now.
Personally, I feel that limited government regulation of banks is a necessary evil in today's volatile market. We have to stop the bleeding at some point. I think that bad lending practices and bad management coupled with immeasurable greed have sent the economy into this spiral. More government regulation could have possibly prevented this situation, or at least lessened the blow the economy took. Let's just hope the bailout works and things take a turn for the better, SOON.
The nationalization of banks is indeed a scary prospect. While it may seem necessary right now, even a good idea, it's a little too close to socialism to suit many. Government control of banks to socialism is probably stretching it a little bit, but it is still a slippery slope. This country was founded on the belief of capitalism and free trade, and one would wonder what the founding fathers would think if they saw the mess that we are in now.
Personally, I feel that limited government regulation of banks is a necessary evil in today's volatile market. We have to stop the bleeding at some point. I think that bad lending practices and bad management coupled with immeasurable greed have sent the economy into this spiral. More government regulation could have possibly prevented this situation, or at least lessened the blow the economy took. Let's just hope the bailout works and things take a turn for the better, SOON.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
