My Manifesto, 2.0 yo!

1. If a larger corporation goes out of business then he Government should subsidize them to an extent. If a corporation is all of a sudden going under then the Government should subsidize them because it was a random thing that could be because of a tax or economic factor that my be caused by the Government or just a random turn of the economy then it may be okay to subsidize them. But if a Corporation goes under all of its own accord as a few of the large car companies have done in the last few years the government is in no way responsible to that companies failure. And being in no way at fault for what happened to a company, then the government should not subsidize them. By subsidizing large companies the Government ends up hurting its self and smaller companies. In a market economy like we are supposed to have, there is supposed to be an ebb and flow, meaning that in order to gain overall economic growth in a market companies must come and go. So in order to the economy to grow we must end up losing some companies to that other companies then have an opportunity to grow and fill the void left by the dying Corporation. By intervening the Government is hurting its self by spending its funds in ways it really shouldn't be in amounts that are too large to justify, and it is hurting smaller businesses by taking away their possible opportunities. Doing this is leaving the US in an economic situation where there is limited growth due to how controlled the market is due to the Governments control.

2. I support the federal revenue and expenditures for the last fiscal year for the portion that goes to our defense department and resources. But the ways I criticize the federal revenues and expenditures vastly out number the ways I support it. For one the amount of revenue that comes from income taxes is way too high, the federal government should implement a different form of taxation or a different mixture of taxes to achieve just as much revenue or even more. The amount that the Government is relying upon the individual is absolutely ridiculous considering all the other ways it could gain revenue by focusing instead upon maybe a few different areas to gain as much revenue. Secondly, the amount of revenue that comes for paying social security is more then we are actually spending on social security in the last fiscal year. Where have those extra funds gone? Also the fact the Social Security and Medicare are such a large part of government expenditures is a big problem for me. Both programs were put in place in a different time than now, people were living shorter periods of time and there wasn't the large population of people that we now have relying on the programs as we do now. Now that the baby boomers are reaching an age of retirement and the age that they qualify for these programs younger people are getting stuck with the bill. The fact is Medicare and Social Security need to be reformed because we are paying more to people who are still capable of supporting themselves. Lastly the way that both expenditures and revenues are decided needs to be dealt with, in light of the fiscal cliff and our debt we face our government needs to take a step back a realize whats happening and do something about it rather then putting it off and taxing more and then spending more than it brings in.

3.In keeping with my manifesto and after watching the movie I.O.U.S.A. explain the debt crisis faced by our nation, I propose the following solution that the government tighten their belt and make the hard decisions regarding our expenditures and means of gaining revenue. The government rather than pull a move like creating another fiscal cliff, needs to be able to get past their difference in political views and cooperate. Cooperate in a way that law makers will put the good our our country before their individual political believes and come to some sort of agreement. Once lawmakers can actually talk to each other they need to be able to look at tax codes, revenue, and expenditures we are facing and find ways to effectively tax the population bringing in revenue, at a rate and way that doesn't upset the people too much. But they would have to keep in mind that this should be a plan that should help us out of debt in the next five to ten years not just one year. Once they settle on a way of collecting revenue law makers would have to reform expenditures, specifically Social Security and Medicare, reforming who qualifies and how much should be spend in each program. Both programs should apply to people older than it does now because people are living longer and are able to work for longer than they used to.  
     All the while the government is doing this they must then keep in mind that they need to formulate a plan that would help to get rid of the national debt in the next decade. Reforming parts of the government is only a part of the plan, we cannot go through another fiscal cliff and put off the hard decisions. But we do have to keep in mind that we need to have this plan be flexible with the economy to refrain from having any form of recession. It will be hard and near impossible but if we don't face this problem head on instead of raising the debt ceiling we are in big trouble. It's going to suck but honestly I think that the best way to deal with this is facing it head on. 

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.