When it comes to Obamacare, I believe there are many more pros than cons. The article gives valid information, and unfortunately personal opinions in politics seem to lay a fog over the actuality. The number of uninsured people is declining, full time employment rising, and health insurance offers a higher incentive to stay and grow with the company, stabilizing households when compared to consistently switching between jobs. Another benefit is that people can stay underneath their parents until the age of 26. Allowing enough time to earn a degree and therefore earn a job that will offer its own insurance. This is a limited number of pros, there are more however this short list has things that will change America for the better.

I’d like to choose “Hoodwinked” as my book choice for the project

I think that the increased distribution of benefits will show a further lengthening of our life expectancy. We have continued to make health care more accessible, have more sanitary options for the poor than ever before. There has also been a huge amount of interest sparked in things like repairing old homes, rebuilding cities, all things that in time will save money, and said money will continue to circulate. Entrepreneurship is also sparking with new technology and so many new possibilities, people are taking on their own businesses, becoming successful and alleviating some stresses for themselves and their families, and many of these business owners attempt to give back in forms of donations, offering education through scholarships etc.

Canada’s idea of posing a minimum annual income – While I don’t agree with the $15 minimum wage, it could be higher, and raising it in smaller increments would help continually keep up with inflation, while if we go straight up to $15/hr, we’ll have to continue to raise it from a higher starting point. I do believe the minimum wage could be slightly raised over time – while costing companies more to pay employees, the same employees would have more money to put back into the economy and I believe it would come full circle.

While the statement that more government interference in underdeveloped countries would be cheaper than their cost to the global economy may stand true, is it worth it? Is war worth it? Losing family, creating more bad blood between countries, unavoidably killing innocent people, children being raised in times of war (taking the focus off of education and on to violence) – is the money really what is important? Was the current violence in the middle-east expected to last this long? Eventually the cost will have outweighed the money that the underdeveloped countries were costing, and while paying for war, the global economy is still taking the hit from these countries, possibly even more so.

I’s like to trust the poor. However I would agree with adding criteria that must be met before indulging in welfare benefits. By criteria, I mean drug testing, and providing financial history.
I don’t mind paying taxes, and don’t mind some of that money being given to the poor. My main reasoning for wanting to require such things is experience. I worked at a bank recently for quite some time. To get some benefits now, people are required to bring a bank statement. However, the bank statement has to be simply a months history, and have the teller stamp on it. This is not enough. More often than not these same people came in and requested their statements to turn into DHS. The only issue was that they did this, got their blank print out for the month, showing a zero or low balance, and then cashed their paychecks for the month. Most paychecks were not huge, but certainly would be enough to disqualify them from benefits. I think currently, it’s just a little too easy to work around the ‘system’ and would like a little more to be required so that welfare and such weren’t taken advantage of so easily.

Emerging countries seem to have a little bit of an advantage currently. They are able to copy existing technology in order to keep up with current competitors, while the current ‘top dogs’ have to work harder to invent new technology while continually working with what they’ve already got. like the reading said, emerging countries have the advantage of ‘following’. They’ve also got growing resources and knowledge. Are we going to be able to develop new technology at a rate that will keep us ahead of those closing the gap?

I found myself getting distracted during this video, thinking about all the possibilities. There are so many business options, but survivors depend on budgeting, system, originality, etc. Businesses tend to look at the global economy, the bigger picture and blame internal problems on that, while more attention should be paid to their ‘personal economy’ if you will. While it is necessary to be aware of the global economy, internal business problems should not be blamed on the economy in general, but rather the business’ ability to change and grow with it.

It seems that, when compared to emerging markets, first world countries are looking at more disadvantages than advantages. Yes these emerging countries can help strengthen the global economy- but it will become increasingly harder for first world nations to stay ahead, due to competing knowledge and resources.

I believe big corporations have a larger responsibility then what they are putting out. Its all about money and how to make more… but that becomes too much when that means skimping out on trying to maximize the potential of our country through building a stronger economy