What do the protesters on Wall Street want? The movement that started a little over a month ago with a few dozen participants has now grown to thousands in New York City, across the country and even in a number of countries around the world. Critics that oppose the protest are quick to point out that there is no unified message and that the group is quite disorganized.

The ever-increasing attention that the Wall Street protestors are receiving from the media as well as politicians, including the President makes it impossible to dismiss the mostly young crowd as a bunch of out-of-work, hooligans who have nothing better to do with their time than stir up trouble.

While it is true that the group does lack strong focus, they are starting to become more of a cohesive unit. Initially, when the protestors were interviewed, they gave a variety of responses when asked why they were camping out in the park just a few blocks from the heart of the financial district in lower Manhattan. There answers ranged from hating the war, not having a job and wanting the greedy Wall Street Bankers to go to jail for their greed. Some had even more unrelated causes such as saving the animals and advocating for organic food.

As the group enters its second month of protests, they are attracting more attention and also raising more money. According to one of the people in charge of the fund raising effort, the Wall Street Protestors have raised a little over $300,000 to date from both online contributors and on-site collections. They intend to vote democratically on how to best spend the money to further their efforts. Some of the suggestions include adding free wi-fi to the entire park so communications can be enhanced, buying food and other necessities for the growing crowd and possibly purchasing ads to enhance their name recognition.

---

Posted by Derrick on October 25th, 2011 :: Filed under Finances,Politics
Tags :: cohesive unit, dozen, dozen participants, food, free wi fi, lower manhattan, park, Protestors

---

Why Does Apple Have More Money Than the US Government?

For a period of time in late July 2011, specifically July 29 and 30, Apple Computers, makers of the iPod, iPhone, and almost anything else in the computer world that starts with ‘i’, had more cash on hand than the entire United States federal government. Several news operations reported on the morning of July 29 that Apple Computers had roughly $76.2 billion on hand, whereas the federal government only had $73.8 billion.

This happened because Congress was busy debating the raising of the debt ceiling, which became a massive political uproar at that time. The United States government at the time was authorized to run a debt of a maximum of $14.294 trillion dollars. At the time, they were running close to this limit, and so President Obama asked Congress to raise the limit.

This has been done many times since 1917, when Congress changed from directly authorizing all government payments to setting debt limits instead. It had last been done in February 2010 by the Democratic House and Senate. This time around, the Republicans in the House were not comfortable with the idea, and the inability of the two parties to come to an agreement almost led to the federal government being unable to pay its bills.

A bill was finally passed on August 2, the final day before the government defaulted on its bills. As the government was unable to borrow any more money until the debt ceiling was increased, their cash on hand steadily dropped to the point that on July 29 it had less cash on hand than Apple Computers. This fact was generally used at the time to compare Apple’s ability to grow and manage its financial operations to the governments in an unfavorable light, though on the other hand, the federal government has always run a debt – it ended the Revolutionary War with a $75 debt to various banks that lent it money to fight the war.

---

Posted by Derrick on October 25th, 2011 :: Filed under Finances,Politics
Tags :: apple computers, debt limits, Government, hand, limit, political uproar, time, united states federal government

---

Have Obamas policies really worked?

Determining the efficacy of a sitting president’s policies can be difficult. There are certainly policies put into place by the administration that may not pay off for years, while other plans have much quicker results. With elections around the corner, many U.S. citizens may find themselves wondering if Obama’s policy initiatives have actually worked. The answer to the question is complex, but can fairly easily be broken down. The President’s initiatives can be broken down into three easy categories: economic, social, and international. President Obama is not a failure in all three categories, but the current prognosis does not look good.

Obama’s initiatives have famously failed economically. The country remains in an economic free-fall despite the President’s efforts, and most of his initiatives have either failed or have been blocked in Congress. His social initiatives, meanwhile, have been more of a mixed bag: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was successfully repealed, but health care reform has become something of a political quagmire. His international efforts have been far more positive, with global opinion of the United States on the rise once more. In the end, it might best be said that Obama’s policies only truly work when they take place out of the country.

Only time will tell if the President’s policies have truly worked out. Some of them can be classified as failures, while others are successes. Like many presidents of the past, though, it seems that only time will allow for an accurate picture to be painted of his administration. As campaign season rounds the corner, it seems more and more likely that the President’s initiatives will fade to the background as he prepares to run for an unlikely second term. Regardless of the outcome, though, his legacy is best left for the future to decide.

---

Posted by Derrick on October 25th, 2011 :: Filed under Politics
Tags :: campaign season, corner, health care reform, Obamas, policy initiatives, president, social initiatives, time

---

Mitt Romney seems to be one of the more likely Republican presidential candidates. He has strong poll numbers, expresses opinions that resonate with the core voting audience, and seems to be a safe choice against a president with rapidly dropping approval numbers. However, many of Romney’s political stances are rather hard to determine. He has been quite skilled at answering questions without answering them, and finding anything out takes a fair bit of research. Many wonder, for example, what are Mitt Romney plans for foreign affairs? The answers are quite simple, though they do take a bit of effort to find.

While many might state the Romney’s plans for international affairs are particularly hawkish, they do not seem to represent a particularly large break from any policies of the past. He is against nuclear disarmament, for greater troop deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan, and believes that the military should grow in size. He is distrustful of Russias suppression of democracy, but has expressed an overall admiration for most European nations. He is in favor of legal immigration the United States and strongly against amnesty for current illegal immigrants. In short, his general foreign policy can best be described as somewhat similar to that of both of his predecessors.

Mitt Romney has rather little international experience. It is likely that many of his positions would change if elected, as with the foreign policy opinions of most presidents in the past. His current opinions are in line with the mainstream of Republican thought, though he (and the party in general) share a number of the same thoughts as the more centrist wing of the Democratic party. Whether or not Romney would actually act on the opinions that he has expressed is something that only time, and the electorate, can truly tell.Mitt Romney seems to be one of the more likely Republican presidential candidates. He has strong poll numbers, expresses opinions that resonate with the core voting audience, and seems to be a safe choice against a president with rapidly dropping approval numbers. However, many of Romneys political stances are rather hard to determine. He has been quite skilled at answering questions without answering them, and finding anything out takes a fair bit of research. Many wonder, for example, what are mitt romney’s plans for foriegn affairs? The answers are quite simple, though they do take a bit of effort to find.

While many might state the Romney’s plans for international affairs are particularly hawkish, they do not seem to represent a particularly large break from any policies of the past. He is against nuclear disarmament, for greater troop deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan, and believes that the military should grow in size. He is distrustful of Russias suppression of democracy, but has expressed an overall admiration for most European nations. He is in favor of legal immigration the United States and strongly against amnesty for current illegal immigrants. In short, his general foreign policy can best be described as somewhat similar to that of both of his predecessors.

Mitt Romney has rather little international experience. It is likely that many of his positions would change if elected, as with the foreign policy opinions of most presidents in the past. His current opinions are in line with the mainstream of Republican thought, though he (and the party in general) share a number of the same thoughts as the more centrist wing of the Democratic party. Whether or not Romney would actually act on the opinions that he has expressed is something that only time, and the electorate, can truly tell.

---

Posted by Derrick on October 25th, 2011 :: Filed under Politics
Tags :: audience, bit, legal immigration, nuclear disarmament, poll, president, republican presidential candidates, troop deployment

---