Reaction to I.O.U.S.A

2025

         Since my early educational days in High School twelve years ago the National Debt has changed a lot. It took a while after the coming of the fiscal cliff for republicans and democrats to decide how to take action to control the National Debt. After the fiscal cliff rolled around there was a lot of angry debates in congress as to what to do. They finally decided to hit the storm head on and handle the debt crisis, even though it was really difficult at first. After the elected officials decided on a course of action they took their ideas to Obama and finally settled on a plan to drastically cut government spending , while funding businesses that had a strong foreign market increasing the amount of exports we used to have and that helped to bring the debt down. 

          Since then taxes have gone up, but only for about a ten year period, enough to get the debt to a manageable point. That made it really difficult to get through college, I'm living paycheck to paycheck basically but do not used credit cards and am not in debt. Although recently I have been able to start saving money in the bank for a house. So overall getting to where we are as a nation now was difficult, but I believe that is  was better to go through that tough period in order to come out alive and intact  But we still have a pretty large debt, are my children going to have to go through the same things I had to because of that? Or will the leadership in America continue to make pretty good decisions and save our nation?

Works Cited

Works Cited Page

"Association of Racing Commissioners International." Gale Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Detroit: Gale, 2008. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 27 Nov. 2012.

Briggs, Joe Bob. "Racinos Hurt the Horse-Racing Industry." Gambling. Ed. David Haugen and Susan Musser. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2007. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "The Vegas Guy: Duel in the Grandstand." United Press International, 2003. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 27 Nov. 2012.

"Distribution of the horse racing takeout dollar in California, 2005." Gambling: What's at Stake?. Ed. John W. Weier. 2007 ed. Detroit: Gale, 2010. Information Plus Reference Series. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 27 Nov. 2012.

"Horse racing needs to gallop." Globe & Mail [Toronto, Canada] 31 Oct. 2012: A13.Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 27 Nov. 2012.

"Olympic Games were a bad bet for Ladbrokes." Evening Standard [London, England] 18 Oct. 2012: 56. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 27 Nov. 2012.

Rotstein, Gary. "Racinos Have Economic Benefits." Gambling. Ed. Margaret Haerens. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "How Slot Machines Have Saved Racetracks." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 25 Feb. 2007. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 27 Nov. 2012.

Welden, Lee Vander. "Horse Racing." Encyclopedia of Recreation and Leisure in America. Ed. Gary S. Cross. Vol. 1. Detroit: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2004. 452-457. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 3 Dec. 2012.

Research Project

Horse Racing is a world of its own, from the hats women wear on race day to the roots the
industry has in history. It’s safe to say Racing is an old sport, with a history dating the origins of modern race tracks to the beginning of the 1600’s in Great Britain. The origins of those tracks in Great Britain date back to chariot racing and mounted racing much earlier in the ancient Roman Empire as a form of public entertainment and game in the Olympics from 700 B.C to 394 A.D. The British got the idea after the Crusades in the Middle East and Northern Africa for racing was common there, and brought back many horses. Racing came to America with the first settlers, who had brought at least seven by 1610. Early on in America, horse races were consisted  mostly of Steeple chases, or races between a few horses at four mile lengths. Racing became more popular in the South in states like West Virginia, with Virginia becoming the horse center of America. By 1840 there were 63 operating racetracks in the South. Races held between the North and South Champions became annual events. The civil war devastated the Horse Racing industry in the south, therefore shifting the center of racing to New York. Saratoga opened in 1863, followed by Jerome Park located in New York City in 1866. The Kentucky Derby was started in 1875, The Preakness in 1873, and The Belmont in 1867. From then on until around the late 1980’s horse racing had its height, tracks were bringing in profit as well as people. Since around 1980 the racing world has been caught up in a decline in which track after track gets shut down when they were not bringing in enough money to survive, a lot like the drive in movie theaters across America. As America matured economically it left these older industries in the dust. Since then the racing world has been struggling to make ends meet, both breeders and tracks are feeling the pressure to find a way to survive.

How does an old industry such as Horse Racing get by? This is a conversation that is ongoing. Tracks want to know how to bring more people out to the track during the three days a week the races are held, as well as how to bring in more profit and produce larger purses for the races. As a solution to this problem since around 1985 tracks have tried to introduce another form of gambling to their facilities, slot machines. These tracks have now been renamed Racinos, a Race Track and a Casino and there is a lot of controversy over this concept; a few include the feud between the two types of gamblers it attracts, and how this affects the integrity of the industry and the effect it has upon the economic aspect of the industry.

        Ever since the introduction of slots to Louisiana Downs, in 1993 in the form of being scattered about the three floors of their Grand Stands, a feud has been born between gamblers who play slots and gamblers who bet on horses. They simply do not like each other; bettors don’t like the slot players because they feel as though they have intruded upon their grounds and are unwelcomed. Also the fact that the way they gamble is completely different in comparison. There is so much that goes into betting on horses, beginning about two days or longer before the actual race. The Bettor must examine the line up of the race then determine which horse is the best by a list of criteria, many come up with on their own. They compare an endless flow of data specific to each horse, and sift through seemingly irrelevant factors, such as how much the horse ate last week to how many times they poo a day. Keep in mind this is all before race day. Then once race day comes around many Bettors will actually watch the warm up of each horse, possibly even look into how the jockey feels, before they place their bets. This is all for a single bet in one race. This isn’t the end though, most Bettors will bet on a horse per race at the track they are at. On top of that they will also bet on races at other tracks that they keep track of via satellite feeds. A Bettor can look into about 10 races a day at the track they are at and an additional possible 60 via satellite. So that’s 70 races a day and about 560 horses they will study. Compare this to the process of preparation to play slots. Get change from a change machine and pull a lever. Seems pretty simple. Many horse Bettors regard slots as a “mindless pure game of chance” and that the addition of slots have affected the integrity of the racing industry by changing the environment of the track and how they gain business.

These differences in addition to how the slots are commonly mixed about the Grand Stand, lead the two gamblers to not get along. This feud alone can cause effects on the success of the Track by causing fewer people to attend events at the track due to the changed environment. Many argue that despite the unhappiness between the two sides the addition of slot machines have increased the Tracks profits, in most cases barely increasing profits, allowing them to survive. But is it really worth it? Making two groups of people so unhappy and changing the world of racing, is that worth the small help that slots have given the industry?

Racing has been forgotten left behind here in America, it used to be such a great part of the economy by affecting the money flow from races to the areas around tracks. But the reality is that now slot machines alone bring $163.8 million into the economy annually while racing now only brings $4.6 million. And despite the fact that the people gambling don’t really like each other, many tracks have embraced the introduction of slot machines gaining the status of Racino. Also, that Racinos are more economically beneficial to the American economy by bringing in more revenue annually. Tracks have tried to change the idea that slots affect the integrity of racing by designating slot parlors in the grandstands separating patrons of the building. This concept, although with limited proof of success, of adding slot machines may end up leading to just attaching Casinos to Tracks, which is a whole other paper to write, but something to think about.

The Fiscal Cliff

            The Fiscal Cliff is a term coined by Ben Bernanke the chairman of the Federal Reserve referring to the end of the Bush-era tax cuts that are set to expire next year, after which expensive spending cuts are to go into effect.The Bush-era tax cuts were put into effect in 2001 and 2003 when the Republicans had control over the House. At the time they had hoped that they would be a permanent way to re-write the tax code. But that was not the case, they ended up having to put an expiration date on them of 2010. The question of what would happen when 2010 rolled around became much more debated after the Republicans lost control of the house in 2006. After that Republicans and Democrats fought over what would happen, Republicans wanting to make them Permanent and Democrats wanted to end them for upper-income households.

             In 2010 Obama made a deal to expend the cuts two more years to help support the still fragile economy we were dealing with. When 2012 rolled around the tax cuts became a big platform in the Presidential Campaign. Obama wanting to end them for households that made over $250,000 a year, Romney argued that it would still harm the economy and small businesses. Immediately after Obama's re-election the focus in Washington was on the Fiscal Cliff.

             When talks concerning what to do about this Cliff began Obama promised to veto any deals that did not include higher taxes on the wealthy. John Boehner, the Speaker of the House and Republican, firmly stands behind the Republican parties believe that the taxes should  not be released, but is open to conversion on Tax Reforms. It's safe to say that Republicans and Democrats are at a stand still on the subject for two reasons. One its the end of the year and many members of Congress are being taken out and sworn into office so there is little people who are not re-elected can do, also Republicans and Democrats simply cannot reach a compromise. The Fiscal Cliff was put into effect to force politicians to make a decision on the Tax crisis, essentially putting a gun to their heads in order to come to a decision  But now time is short and they are still no where close to a decision.

My Manifesto

          I feel that the government has gotten extremely involved in our day to day lives.  But its involvement in the economy seems to be about right to me. Well maybe more involved that I would like. It seems like the government is more involved then they would like us to know. We are supposed to have a market economy but a lot of the parts of our economy are controlled by the government, if not directly then indirectly. Like they don't decide what can be bought and sold in our economy, well at least not with out reason. But they do control taxes on individuals and taxes on businesses and on purchases. So they control our economy in that way, they limit what it is an individual can do with their money. And that's not a terrible thing, but it also doesn't seem to be following our idea of how think the economy is being controlled.
         The government should be smaller in my opinion. It shouldn't be reaching into so many different aspects of our life. We are supposed to be a democracy and have all sorts of freedoms and liberties. But in the least 20 years the government has been expanding into parts of Americans lives that the never used to be. Taxes, for example, have been a large part of that. And the reason taxes have become such a big problem is because the government has been expanding, and in order to expand they need money to pay for it. New government programs have been created over the last 10 years and all they have been successful at is spending money. The U.S. is facing a massive deficit  and all the officials have been doing is try and baby people through it by creating programs that are supposed to help but end up costing more money than they are worth. Then on top of that there are new taxes that come into effect every year. Like this year we have a new tax on properties,we already pay property taxes but now if we buy or sell property you are taxed, and then your taxed on the income you get from that sell/purchase. This isn't the only example, taxes have been double dipping on ways to tax Americans.
          Taxes have been messed up for a long time and all the government does is spend money trying to help people through the deficit and they end up hurting the other Americans with how taxes are set up now. I'm not saying its wrong for the government to want to help people who go through a natural disaster or lose a job, its okay to do it then, but all of the dumb programs like Obamacare that have been put in place and force Americans to spend money how they think we should then wheres the freedom in that? They are forcing families who maybe don't have enough money to put money that they would spend else where into heath care that they might not even end up needing. And they just keep adding programs on top that costs more money. If we want to get through this deficit we need to have massive budget cuts in the government and reforms that would get rid of pointless programs that exist and don't do any thing. We need to fix programs like FEMA, Social Security, and the way the budget is spent in our government. We need to find new ways to support the less fortunate with out taking away from the wealthy  We need a flat rate income tax that way every one is paying the same amount of money in proportion to what they make.

Minimum Wage

      I support minimum wage because it helps ensure a quality of life for Americans who are in poverty. By existing, minimum wage can end up cutting the amount of jobs a business can offer, but it does help keep up production no matter how much people oppose it. It does this by helping keep up workers motivation. If workers worked for any less then the current wage its undeniable that people would be beyond upset and in poverty. minimum wage helps keep Americans alive, even with how little it is. I feel that the minimum wage should be raised. Yes it will cut down on production, but we already have a surplus as it is so that should help some businesses with the raise. It shouldn't necessarily be raised to $10/hour but i think it should be raised because it would help support so many more Americans. But is we did raise it we would have to help support it with other price controls to maintain a healthy, growing economy.

Price Floors

     I definitely support price floors because they help produce an overall more wealthy economy. In a situation where a price floor would be put into effect a surplus would be a result. In my opinion a surplus is better then a shortage and produces an environment where economic growth is more of a possibility than an environment where there is a shortage. However floors do have their downfalls and can affect production, but I feel that overall floors have more benefits when they are put into place in a controlled environment.

Price Ceilings

     I oppose the idea the price ceilings have a place in our economy. I feel this way because price ceilings produce shortages and make it difficult to produce in the long run. I believe that in special circumstances a price ceiling may be the answer, but those times are extremely rare in my opinion. Price ceilings may be a short term fix that exist for a short period of time, but in the long run they over all cause more harm than they help.

Supply Wrap Up

Demand Wrap-up

Inelastic and Elastic Demand

Demand Wrap Up

Inelastic Demand

           Inelastic demand is when a good or service is needed, and obtained by consumers with little attention payed for the good. So basically, the supply and demand are hardly affected by the price. I have experienced this sort of demand in my life through my dads Business. My Dad is a Site Core Developer now but before he was trained three years ago to be specialized in this field he was a normal run of the mill developer and computer engineer. His job used to be very generalized and there were a lot of people that could do what he did so his business was elastic because there were many substitutes to his work. Once he became specialized with Site Core and started his own business I experienced how inelastic demand worked. My dad was able to charge more for his services because his services were required by a lot of large businesses and it was a specialized field. What makes this inelastic is that the supply and demand of his service was hardly affected by the price of his service. 

       I have been able to connect to both elastic and inelastic demand because I experienced how it can affect a business and income of a family. What are other ways that are less complicated then this that are good examples to use to try and explain this to people? And how can people relate with it when they haven't seen it from the side of the supplier?

Headlines Assignment

Complementary Demand: "Spike in whip and spur sales at the St. Paul Rodeo."


Substitute Demand:  "Electric car sales spark as gasoline car sales skid to A screeching halt."


Elastic Demand:  "Ice cream prices soar while sales numbers melt away."


Inelastic Demand:  "Electric bills spike, leaving consumers sweating."

Electric bills spike, leaving consumers sweating.

       Over the summer of 2012 a massive heat wave hit the northwest. Being normally cool region throughout the year, Oregonians were unaccustomed to having to crank up the AC during the summer months. Many Oregonians struggled with dealing with the heat. Some tried to go to the river to keep cool while others would leave windows and doors open to create some sort of cool draft through their houses. After many trials and fails Oregonians had a decision to make, many choosing to give up efforts at keeping the AC off and dealing with the heat.

         Most Oregonians decided to turn on their AC units in their homes to keep cool. With temperatures exceeding 100 degrees, homeowners had to crank up their AC in order to keep their homes at a livable temperature. The result of this massive swell of energy use as a consequence of homeowners using the AC made energy bills sky rocket. With no other alternative, people chose to continue use of their AC for the reason that there was no better alternative short of moving to Antarctica to escape the heat.

Market Economies

           Market Economies have many advantages, like the ability to adapt to economic changes, how much freedom it gives individuals and businesses, as well as the limited government interference. All of these are characteristics I love about our economy because it allows individuals to succeed by their own doing. My Dad graduated college with a degree in electrical engineering, but ended finding his niche building the frame work for websites using a program called Site Core and owning his own business that specialized in that. Our market economy allowed my dad to adapt his skills in order to be successful. That I think is the greatest strength of our market economy, it allows individuals to take charge of their own life and become successful on their own without any serious interference from the government or out side sources. 

             Although there are many advantages there are also some disadvantages of having a Market Economy. A few disadvantages would be that not everyone's basic needs are being taken care of, workers can face uncertainty of success, and lastly a market economy can not provide enough services that people highly value. I think that the greatest disadvantage would be that some people get left in the dust and are not taken care of. I mean look at the growing homeless population especially here in Portland. Market economies make it so individuals can be successful, but it also makes it difficult for some people to be successful because it is hard to go out into the world unless you have a leg up, which some people don't have. When in a command economy every one is given equal opportunity but that opportunity is all the same, and everyone can only do the same thing. 

           So how can America fix that flaw in our Market Economy and help people who don't have a leg up get started, but do that without making every one else suffer or pay the less fortunate way?

Opportunity Cost

                   Sophomore year I was training off season for soccer and I was playing in a pick up game at the Tualatin Indoor Facility in a co-ed game. I was chasing a guy about three times my size back down the field on a break away in a dead sprint, got in front of him and tackled away the ball, when I planted my right foot his knee drove into the back of my knee and I heard three pops and my knee buckled left and right. I went to the emergency room the next day and they said that nothing was wrong and I would be okay, but they referred me to an orthopedic, who then told me I had completely torn my ACL.
                   

                     My doctor gave me a few options; I could have surgery to repair it and take a graph of tendon from my hamstring, quad or patella, or I could just live with it. The opportunity cost of having the surgery would have been dealing with the drugs it requires to go through surgery, recovery time, physical therapy, and most likely being unable to play soccer because of the injury. The opportunity cost of not having the surgery would have been living on a bum knee and having to be extremely cautious with what I did. I ended up choosing the lesser or two evils and went with surgery so I would have freedom again, and a possibility to play soccer. I did this because the surgery would give me a better and happier future.


                      I have gone through a really big hurdle with my health so I know a little bit more about how opportunity cost weighs in on things. But what about people who haven't had an opportunity to learn how to go about these types of decisions. What are the best ways to have people learn, understand, and experience working with opportunity cost over then just listing off examples?

Scarcity

TIME IS SCARCE

Route 66 Gift Shop, http://www.excelcompaniesltd.com/clocks.htm.

A reason why time is scarce to me is because it seems like now-a-days I can never seem to have enough of it to get anything done and have time for myself. I can run around doing all the activities I am supposed to do, but I still cant seem to find enough time to focus on things I love, like hanging out at my barn all day or learning a new song on the piano. There is just never enough time.