How to deal with poverty in the United States
Although all other nations view the United States as the richest country in the world, poverty still exists in this multi-cultural country. The United States has far more billionaires than any other countries in the world. However, the distance between the rich and the poor is also very huge in this country. The recession in December 2007 has especially widen this distance and also worsen the poverty crisis in the US.
The World Bank reported in August 2008 that there has been no major poverty reduction in the last couples of decades across the whole world. The only nation that sees poverty reduction is China. If China is not counted towards the calculation, poverty across the world only fell by 10 percent. The US also has to face several turmoil and crisis that make poverty an even more complicated issue.
The poverty rate soared from 13,2% in 2008 to 15% in 2009 due to financial crisis. This is the highest percentage ever since 1959 when the US government started calculating the poverty percentage. There are 45 million American living in poverty in 2009, which is a big number anyway. Child poverty is also an issue, one of every five children in the US is living in poverty and struggling to meet the basic requirements and standards.
Getting rid of poverty seems to be the ultimate issue that is facing all nations regardless developed or developing. However, the solution to this issue is not easy to carry out, especially on a wide scale as each nation has its own characteristics. The US government is doing its best to increase the overall living standards of all its citizens. In 2010, when the economy is seeing signs of recovery from the crisis, the number of jobless claims decreases and the number of job vacancy also increases accords the nation. Maybe this is a good sign that the US is gaining control over the crisis and may find ways to decrease poverty in the near future.
Should we be against oil drilling?
Recently we have seen a great deal of oil spilling around the world. Needless to say, these oil spilling occurrences have imposed a great threat to the surrounding environment. Many parties and organizations around the world have protested against oil drilling activities, especially unsecured ones. However, up till now, the effect of these protests have been minimal, due to the huge financial profit that oil brings back.
To effectively reduce the adverse impact oil spills have on the environment, we should try every possible method to clean oil spills as well as purify the affected area in the shortest time possible. Many green parties in the United States are opposed to oil drilling and have been actively involved in oil spill cleaning activities. One of the most active states in the United States that is affected by oil spilling is South Carolina. South Carolina has more than 180 miles of coastline, with many inlets and islands. Before the Gulf Coast spill, the Us have already undergone more or less than 40 spills with each greater than 1,000 barrels since 1964. In the oil-affected areas, animals, fish, birds and other sea life have been destroyed. Oil cannot fully dissolve in water so too much oil can cause dramatic decrease in the level of oxygen and therefore make fish and sea plant die.
Oil cleaning activities should be performed in a hurry and thorough manner so as to get rid of oil spills the fastest way. Too much delay or lack of effective cleaning facility can result in environmental catastrophe.
Green parties around the world should do their best to help in this oil cleaning process. In fact, they have helped out a lot. Many animals and lots of plants and sea life have been saved thanks to the wholehearted activities of environmental-aware people and parties.
Breast Cancer Charity Work
Each year more and more women are diagnosed with breast cancer. The amount of death due to breast cancer also increase dramatically over time. Today, not only the developed countries are affected with this disease but many developing countries also have a high level of deaths due to this disease. Many organizations have established breast cancer charity work to help people cope with this illness. These activities have helped many people with financial issues to cope with the disease, mane people have therefore been cured.
Breast cancer can happen to any woman, at any time. However, the disease tends to occur when women reach their middle age or menopause period. The most effective way to cope with the disease is to prevent it before it happens to you. Each 6 months each woman should go to the doctor and have their breast tested for signs of breast cancer. If you know the disease early you will have a higher possibility of surviving.
To cure breast cancer, doctors often advise patients to cut off one part of the breast that is effected with cancer. After the treatment and the surgery, many women find themselves having difficulties getting back to their usually, especially their sex lives. Many choose Silicone Breast Augmentation as a way to feel "normal" and to gain back confidence in their life.
Breast Cancer Charity Organizations are here to help all kinds of people to cope with this disease. Whenever a patient have difficulties coping with this fatal disease, they can consult the voluntary specialist.
Green parties all over the world, especially in the United States have established many kinds of Breast cancer assistance centers. Due to the high number of breast cancer patients in this country, it is highly beneficial to the patients. If the patient has difficulties coping with the illness financially the organization will help her find support and donors so that she will have a chance to cure herself of the disease.
Green Party Visibility Used to Manipulate Votes
The Green Party has never been known as the most visible of political groups, but they’re becoming more and more present as years go on. This is especially true as other groups become more extreme in their rhetoric and positions, opening territory for the moderate and environmentally friendly Green Party to show its color proudly. Unfortunately, some groups are more than willing to use this struggle for visibility to manipulate the polling process.
It’s certainly true that Green Party representatives are more akin to Democrats than Republicans, and it’s for this very reason that Republicans are helping Green Party representatives get their names onto the ballots. Conservative groups have donated heavily, helped campaign, signed petitions, and sidestepped pushing their own representatives into too powerful of positions. And why?
The theory is that having Green Party representatives on the ballots will successfully tip the scales toward Republican nominees due to the fact that more liberal votes will be more split between the Green Party and the Democrats. The tactic may go back to historic evidence from the Bull Moose party in the early 1900s, when a "similar to Republican" nominee who formed his own party got enough of the votes siphoned off of the Republican nominee that the Democrat went into office.
The case and point for this tactic is Texas, where even Republican officeholders have been giving handouts to Green Party nominees in order to make them more visible.
This creates a large amount of controversy, and a more difficult ethical decision. Is it right to me more visible—and struggle for that visibility in whatever way possible—even when it might tip the scales toward a counterproductive political agenda? Should Green Party nominees continue to accept these gifts and petition signatures, knowing that it will hurt the Democrats and help the visibility of the semi-transparent Green Party?
Have you ever heard about Living Wage Campaigns
Have you heard of the famous campaign Living Wage? You know what? Usually this is a requirement that employers have to pay a minimum wage to their employees. The U.S. federal government has a minimum wage of $ 5.15 per hour which is not enough to live, even if you work 40 hours a week. The hirer will not likely raise their worker’s wage voluntarily in most case, that’s why the government have to set the rule to make sure the overall population is living at least up to the standards.
Although the United States is considered to be the richest country in the world, the distance between the rich and the poor is widening. Some people still have to work for pennies (at around 5 dollars an hour with no added benefits). AS the inflation is taking over, these poor people find it hard to survive. Although they work long hours they still cannot manage to have even the slightest form of facility to smooth their lives.
The Livig Wage Campaign has been accepted by 79 cities including San Francisco, Los Angeles and Boston. In Los angeles, the minimum wage now has been rasied to $6.15. AS more and more cities pass this ordinance, we can see a rasie in the living standards of the lower class.
Although the Living Wage Campaign still encounters some objections as well as difficulties from various parties, we believe it will be a great success in the near future. A rich nation must be a nation in which all citizens have a high living standard. A nation cannot be considered rich if it has a too broad distance between the rich and the poor. By setting high minimum wage, we can help the poor cope with the economy. And as we come to develop more policies in the future, we are confident that we can gradually shorten the distance between the richest family and the poorest one.
Investing Your Green in Gold ETFs
- Image via Wikipedia
Unless you are looking at a Chapter 13 filing and www.totalbankruptcy.com is your regular Internet stop, you should consider investing your money.
Regardless of your politics, consider what money managers advise people to do. Imagine all of your money sitting in a pile in front of them. Take out money for bills, money to pay debts, discretionary expenses, and the like. Whatever remains is for investment. Take out a tenth of this for riskier investments like the stock market, another tenth for no-risk investments like government bonds, and of what remains, a sizable portion can be used to hedge against inflation with gold purchases.
You can purchase gold in three distinct ways. First, buy gold bullion, as in bank-issued coins and bricks. Second, go for gold jewelry, and third, invest in gold ETFs. The first two gold purchases add an extra assurance to your investment, but at some costs. Among the costs are the fact that you can’t liquidate your gold easily, and you get a much lower price than spot gold prices, to say nothing of security and storage costs.
Buying gold ETFs takes away all of these costs, although, for the novice investor, it seems less secure. Gold ETFs are like stocks in that they’re bought and sold on the stock market. But they’re like mutual funds in that the company offering the ETF takes your money and invests it in gold. You do not have to worry about storage, security, or liquidating your physical gold. You usually get rates almost on par with the market, and unlike mutual funds that invest in risky stocks, investing in gold is usually held to be a very safe investment.
There are about 10 different gold ETFs in the U.S. market. Make sure to differentiate between a gold ETF and a gold mining company ETF. The latter are usually funds invested in a gold mining consortium.
Higher Education-Is This a Must if You Want to Advance in Life?
Many people want to advance in life and fulfill their dreams. However, there are not many people who are able to do so. the majority finds it hard to do what they want in their life, maybe because they are not trying hard, or maybe they do not have what it takes to realize their dreams. In this society, it is critical important to have a good degree. Many young people strive hard to gain acceptance to worldly famous universities so that they can graduate with a valuable degree and receive better salaries.
The argument for higher education pursue is pretty obvious and I assume most people agree with this argument. The society also put a strong emphasis on the level of education when they evaluate a person. Imagine how embarrassing you are if you answer "I’ve dropped out of high school" when people ask about your education. Many people especially employers will not appreciate a person with limited education basis. Therefore, for the most part, if you want to feel secured then you should possess at least a Bachelor’s degree.
However, there are many people who have great success without going to any school or university. For instance, Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft Corporation, has dropped out of his Harvard University when he decided to pursue his business. Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple Corporation, also dropped out of school for the same reason. In fact, there are many examples of famous and successful business people who did not attend any university. However, just a warning, these people are just a minority and they do have exceptional talent. If you consider yourself to be a "normal person" with no special talent or interest, you should not deem that you can make a great success without pursuing higher education. To be on the safe side, you should have at least a Bachelor’s degree and maybe pursue a career like a CPA who prepares business taxes for corporations to earn a nice salary before moving on to establish your own empire.
Important Moments in Green Party History: The ’96 Election
The Green Party has a long history and has been involved in a lot of important political actions. During this series, we will discuss important steps forward in the political arena, various actions, and other historic moments of note. In this article, we will discuss the actions taking place in 1995 and 96 as they relate to the 1996 Presidential Election.
Each year, there is a national Green Gathering, and in 1995 this took place in New Mexico. There were three members of the party (Jan, Feinstein, and Schmidt) who put forward a measure that would launch the Green Party far more into the public spotlight. The idea was relatively straightforward: The Green party would try to get a candidate for president on the ballot in forty different states.
A small portion of the group felt ill at ease about moving into the national arena in such a momentous way, but the strong majority favored the idea. Various members of the Green Party who were interested in running or wanted to sponsor another candidate put forward various petitions and requested the support of other party members. It was in 1996 that Ralph Nader accepted the position on the ballot.
Running off of a $5,000 campaign budget (something that Nader himself decided on), the Green candidate selected a vice-president (Winona LaDuke) and was officially selected as the representative at a Green Party convention. Upon acceptance, Nader gave a speech that extended past the two hour mark, and which was broadcast on both Pacifica Radio and C-SPAN.
In addition to appearing on the ballot, Nader’s speech helped to increase nationwide exposure for the Green Party on the whole. While the Nader name was only on the ballot in twenty-two states, they received nearly a full percent of the votes, with the total received sitting at nearly 700,000.
Important Moments in Green Party History: Nader’s Second Campaign
The 1996 election showed that the Green Party had the power to be recognized, with Nader receiving nearly a full percent of the votes. However, there was still plenty of room for improvement, and the Presidential campaign was a great way to publicize that.
The time between the ’96 and ’00 elections was one of growth but also divergence within the Green Party. The ASGP was a division of active Greens who were intent on getting more Green Party representatives present and elected in political scenes across the country. Other divisions of Green groups formed for activism, voice, and other pruposes.
When the 2000 elections arrived, Nader and LaDuke were the candidates for the Greens once again. The two exceeded their goals for ’96 by making it onto all but six of the state ballots. Further, and perhaps more importantly, the two more than tripled their total number of votes, reaching nearly three million in total. Certain specific states had a particularly strong voice for the Nader/LaDuke ticket.
The major reason this meant change for the party is that it was no longer simply a group trying to get the "ruling" parties to listen on important issues. It was a party that could actually make a showing at the polls, receive broad public support, and make an electoral dent—small as it might have been at that time.
Nader received some criticism for the large number of votes that he received, especially since almost all of the support was from the more liberal end of the spectrum. With such a narrow vote between Gore and Bush, it’s possible that the Green Party presence led to Bush’s election. This unforeseen circumstance may not have been ideal for the political scene, but it was highly positive for the party itself.
After the campaign, the number of recruits into the Green Party saw a huge climb, with unforeseen growth and the highest party numbers ever.
Important Moments in Green Party History: Green and Growing
The Nader ticket had come under fire in 2000 because many believed it (accidentally) killed Gore’s presidential candidacy by siphoning off votes. As the 2004 election approached, the Green Party prepared for another presidential campaign. However, this was all in the midst of pressure from various liberal groups who wanted to see no Green ticket in ’04. The fear was that this would again create an unfair slant against Democratic nominees and the fact that this would impinge on liberal agendas that the Green Party supported made for a difficult decision in the ’04 race.
The decision was made in Summer of 2003, when 158 different representatives of the Green Party put together a statement titled "Green and Growing: ’04 in Perspective." The statement made the following major points.
1) The presidential campaign was an important opportunity to gain momentum as a group.
2) The campaign would allow for greater visibility.
3) The differences in stance would highlight the places where Democrats failed to meet the needs of certain liberal individuals or groups (and most specifically foreign policy and domestic issues).
There was controversy both inside and outside the Green Party because of this decision, and numerous solutions appeared. For example, Ted Glick made statements that the Greens should certainly campaign, but ought to avoid the swing states so that electoral ballots weren’t impacted. Others felt that an aggressive campaign to try to get as much support as possible in whatever locations it was present.
The end party decision was to use a "state by state" policy, where the Green Party would decide what they wanted their approach to the campaign to be in each individual region. Based on how much support they needed, how much they previously had, whether or not the state was a swing state, and a number of other issues, Greens would adapt their strategy.