In his speech to a joint session of Congress, President Obama urged Congress to "Pass this bill right away", referring to his plan to create jobs for Americans. Click here to read an article about the President's speech, and then respond to one or more of the prompts below.
1. How does television give the President the ability to put pressure on Congress to pass his plan to create jobs for Americans?
2. Do you think Americans will react favorably to the President's speech? Why or why not?
3. How important was it that the President proposed ways to pay for his $450 billion jobs proposal? Explain why you think so.
4. Which parts of the President's jobs plan did you like, and why? Which parts didn't you like, and why?
3 comments:
1. How does television give the President the ability to put pressure on Congress to pass his plan to create jobs for Americans?
The president's repeated comment "pass this bill now" seems to be an attempt by the president to boost his popularity, but giving the appearance that he is doing all he can to fix the economy. It makes the President look like he is trying to help/ do good for the American people, and now how would Congress oppose him without appearing like they are hindering progress and benefits for the American people? Regardless if this Jobs plan is actually a potentially functional plan in which the goals of creating jobs and assisting the eeconomy, the President makes it appear like this is a flawless plan. It may be a good plan or it may just be throwing out 450 billion dollars and hoping something will happen. Either way many people will percieve it as a cure all and so even if Congress thought this plan will not benefit the people they will still recieve negative publicity from their decision.
I think it was important for him to explain how he was supposed to pay for the new jobs plan. He gave more suggestions about how to pay for it rather than a guaranteed way which is what many people in Congress to look for in a new plan. I do not think he will come up with the money to make the plan work. They only sure way to pay would be to cut a program that may be important to many people.He never really suggested a way to pay for it right now, but he wants them to pass it right now.
The patriot act has undergone quite a bit of criticism, but is this a fitting attack? If we look upon the hard facts of this act, it is made with the sole purpose of protecting the American people. The main phrase used by the ACLU in protesting this act of legislature is that this "provision is contrary to traditional notions". I am a fairly conservative fellow, but I am not afraid to see the world change for the better. I do not believe that this is an attack upon human dignity, but a protection of our fundamental rights.
The main criticism is that this act allows search and seizure at the slightest suggestion of terrorist activity. I can see how this would be terrifying... To a terrorist. We in this nation, those of us who are law abiding citizens have no reason to fear. Now, some may say groundless searches will lead to ungrounded arrest. That is hardly a concern. Prisons, among many of their conditions, cost money, as do these investigations. To think that the government plans on doing purely random searches, and attack random citizens is simply not economically, or temporally sound.
This act protects us by searching suspected terrorists without them being aware of the surveillance. If these suspected terrorists have no incriminating evidence, then there's no reason to think that they will be unfairly treated. It is simple paranoia that leads to the critical attacks on this act. I think we can all agree the lives of tree hundred million people is more important than the protection of your search history and who you call. Despite popular Western thought, it's not all about you. This act could very we ll save us.
John Langenstein
Post a Comment