If more than 60 percent of the federal budget is mandatory spending,?? what is left to cut? What economic goals do categories of mandatory spending support? What programs shou

Adriana

Domestic Policy

1. If more than 60 percent of the federal budget is “mandatory spending,” what is left to cut? What economic goals do categories of mandatory spending support? What programs should be abolished or cut? Should any programs be expanded? If so, identify which ones and explain why they should be expanded by agencies such as the Red Cross. Comment.

Answer – The question raises concerns about the possibility of cutting federal spending when more than 60 percent of the budget is allocated to mandatory spending. It prompts a discussion on which programs should be abolished or reduced, and whether any programs should be expanded. The economic goals supported by categories of mandatory spending are not specifically mentioned. However, it suggests that agencies like the Red Cross could potentially benefit from an expansion, without providing reasons for this suggestion. Overall, the question highlights the complexity and challenges involved in making decisions regarding federal spending cuts and expansions.

1. Social Welfare is the most debatable topic in American policy politics, yet many Americans are frustrated by those who sit and collect a check every month without any desire to improve themselves. I often wonder if welfare creates more poverty and laziness. Comment.

Answer – The topic of social welfare is highly controversial in American policy politics due to the frustration felt by many Americans towards individuals who rely on it without making any efforts to better themselves. There is a prevalent concern that welfare might perpetuate poverty and encourage laziness among recipients. This raises questions about the overall effectiveness and impact of welfare programs on society.

1. Comment, What went wrong? Is Florida heading toward a crisis, and why?

Answer – In regards to California's homeless crisis, factors such as rising housing costs, insufficient affordable housing options, mental health issues, and drug addiction have contributed to the problem. Additionally, ineffective policies and lack of coordination among various levels of government have worsened the situation.

As for Florida, while it does currently face some homelessness challenges, it is difficult to predict if it will reach the same level of crisis as California. Factors that may potentially contribute include population growth, income inequality, affordability issues in certain areas, and natural disasters displacing residents. However, proactive measures by policymakers and community organizations can help prevent or mitigate a worsening crisis in Florida.

1. What options you found to be off limits, and why? What options did you select to solve the social security problem? Explain your choices.

Answer – The options that were found to be off limits included increasing the retirement age, cutting benefits for current retirees, and privatizing social security. These options were considered politically unpopular or unfair to current beneficiaries.
The selected options to solve the social security problem involved a combination of raising the payroll tax cap, gradually increasing the payroll tax rate, and means-testing benefits for higher-income individuals. These choices aimed to ensure long-term solvency while maintaining a progressive system that protected vulnerable populations.

Foreign Policy

1. In recent years, the American armed forces have been called on to perform duties that are more humanitarian than militaristic, providing support after the Fukushima disaster, in addition to funds for drought victims in Ethiopia, COVID-19 vaccinations to countries who could not afford them, Ebola patients in West Africa, and earthquake victims in Nepal. Do we have an obligation to assist other countries experiencing a crisis, or should that be left to private relief agencies such as the Red Cross? Comment.

Answer – In recent years, the American armed forces have been involved in various humanitarian efforts around the world. They have provided support after disasters like the Fukushima incident and earthquakes in Nepal, offered aid to drought victims in Ethiopia, and administered vaccinations to countries unable to afford them due to COVID-19. These actions raise the question of whether it is the responsibility of the military or private relief agencies like the Red Cross to assist other nations during crises. Some argue that it is a moral obligation for countries with resources and capabilities to provide assistance in times of need. Others believe that such tasks should be left to non-governmental organizations specializing in humanitarian relief. The debate centers on striking a balance between military duties and humanitarian responsibilities.

1. The War on Terror has created a smaller faction’s terrorist groups than in the past. I wonder if we are making any inroads in the War on Terror or are, we creating more enemies against America.  Comment.

Answer – The War on Terror has resulted in the formation of smaller factions within terrorist groups, indicating some success in disrupting their operations. However, it is important to consider whether this approach is creating more enemies against America. By engaging in military interventions and targeting specific groups, there is a risk of inadvertently radicalizing individuals or communities and fueling anti-American sentiment. Therefore, while progress may have been made in reducing the size of terrorist organizations, it is crucial to assess the broader consequences and long-term effects of these counterterrorism efforts.

1. How safe is the world today? Given all the recent Terror attacks are we making progress in defeating ISIS and other terrorist groups?  Comment.

Answer – The safety of the world today is a matter of debate, especially considering the recent terror attacks. While progress has been made in defeating ISIS and other terrorist groups, complete eradication remains a challenge. The efforts to combat terrorism have resulted in significant losses for these groups, but they continue to adapt and find new ways to carry out attacks. Therefore, it can be said that while progress has been made, there is still work to be done in order to ensure global security.

Babara
Feb 12, 2024Feb 12 at 10:34amManage Discussion EntryIf more than 60 percent of the federal budget is “mandatory spending,” what is left to cut? What economic goals do categories of mandatory spending support? What programs should be abolished or cut? Should any programs be expanded? If so, identify which ones and explain why they should be expanded by agencies such as the Red Cross.
More than 60 percent of the federal budget is designated for required spending, which includes essential programs such as Social Security and Medicare. The possibility of budget reductions exists within the discretionary spending categories. Mandatory spending primarily aims to achieve economic objectives relating to social insurance, means-tested programs, and income security. With the increasing difficulties caused by climate-induced disasters, organizations like the American Red Cross have a crucial role in resolving humanitarian requirements. Given the increasing frequency and severity of climate-related disasters, the Red Cross must adapt and expand its offerings, encompassing financial assistance, immediate assistance, and vital blood provisions. This highlights the importance of evaluating and potentially increasing budget allocations for disaster response and community assistance entities.
Social Welfare is the most debatable topic in American policy politics, yet many Americans are frustrated by those who sit and collect a check every month without any desire to improve themselves. I often wonder if welfare creates more poverty and laziness.
It appeals to people with ill motivations. It is essential to recognize that receiving benefits has become exceedingly simple, which raises questions about the authenticity of individuals in need. Unfortunately, some pretend to have disabilities with the express intention of taking advantage of the system for monetary benefits, which damages the reputation of others who genuinely need assistance. Another distressing situation arises when self-absorbed and ill-informed individuals adopt children just for the monetary benefits offered by the government while disregarding the welfare of the youngsters they have taken under their care. It is important to acknowledge that although not everyone participates in such activity, a substantial portion of persons exploit the system, engaging in immoral actions that negatively influence the American residents who genuinely depend on these support systems.
What went wrong? Is Florida heading toward a crisis, and why?
The housing issue in California is a clear example of a group of systemic problems coming together. Even though the state is known for its strong economy and cutting-edge technology, it faces problems like rising home prices, a serious lack of affordable housing, and mental health resources. The resulting situation, made worse by differences in income, has forced many people to become visibly homeless. Cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles, often seen as symbols of wealth and progress, now have areas filled with tents and other informal shelters.
There are many different roots to this problem. Housing costs rise faster than wages, driving many people from their homes. Having problems with mental health and not having a stable place to live makes things even worse at a frightening rate. Other places, like Florida, need to learn a lot from California. Florida may have housing problems in the future because higher sea levels are putting coastal homes at risk, and the state's population is still growing. We must take proactive steps like investing in affordable homes and strong mental health programs to keep this from happening again.
The long-term solvency of Social Security is widely believed to be in danger. Play the American Academy of Actuaries Social Security GameLinks to an external site.Links to an external site.. Once you have "solved" the game. Share your select results with your classmates by discussing the following questions:
What options you found to be off limits, and why?
What options did you select to solve the social security problem? Explain your choices.
Many experts think the Social Security Trust Fund will soon run out of money if nothing is done to stop it. Some proposed remedies to this problem include changing how cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) are calculated, increasing payroll tax rates, changing benefits for high earnings, or raising the retirement age. As for which options are "off-limits," I cannot say. However, it is worth noting that proposals that would affect current retirees or people who are about to retire and that would drastically cut benefits for future retirees have generally met with strong political opposition.
It is important to find a delicate balance when thinking about possible options. By making small changes to benefits, refining payroll tax systems, and incrementally raising the retirement age, it is possible to create a more stable system without unfairly placing a heavier load on any particular group.

Foreign Policy
In recent years, the American armed forces have been called on to perform duties that are more humanitarian than militaristic, providing support after the Fukushima disaster, in addition to funds for drought victims in Ethiopia, COVID-19 vaccinations to countries who could not afford them, Ebola patients in West Africa, and earthquake victims in Nepal. Do we have an obligation to assist other countries experiencing a crisis, or should that be left to private relief agencies such as the Red Cross?
Yes, generally speaking. Helping other countries out in times of crisis is something the US has always done, and it is one of the fundamental things that makes us great. Although there are times when our assistance falls short of our ideal objectives, our nation always tries to do all it can. Our reaction to the worldwide COVID-19 outbreak is a recent and remarkable example. In addition to supplying vaccines to economically disadvantaged nations, we have also dispatched highly trained healthcare practitioners to assist in treating patients. Countries severely affected by the virus have been given financial help, which shows our commitment. In addition to assisting with health emergencies, we have promptly offered relief to countries facing natural disasters. Following the earthquake in Nepal, we immediately deployed teams of medical professionals to deliver essential healthcare support. Financial assistance was also provided to support the rebuilding of essential infrastructure. Our commitment to aiding countries in need, whether by providing medical aid, responding to disasters, or offering financial support, is a fundamental component of our national values. We strongly feel that it is our responsibility to assist individuals experiencing difficulties, and this dedication will continue in the future.

The War on Terror has created a smaller faction’s terrorist groups than in the past. I wonder if we are making any inroads in the War on Terror or are, we creating more enemies against America.  Comment.
No one can deny America's outsized influence in the war on terror, but I have my doubts about whether or not this effort has been without shortcomings. While we have made a difference worldwide, the unintended result is a possible rise of new opponents and a shift in focus away from serious local challenges such as domestic terrorism. The main problem is that getting rid of all terrorist groups around the world is very hard. Even if we wipe out some organizations or their leaders, their adaptive nature will enable them to recruit new members or even start new organizations to spread their ideology. An ongoing obstacle is this never-ending loop. There seems to be a misalignment between the priorities; while fighting terrorism on a global scale receives a lot of attention, domestic terrorism is still a major problem. We should stop wasting time and energy on foreign wars and focus on domestic problems. Doing so might help us avoid making matters worse and direct our attention toward addressing the issues within our boundaries.
How safe is the world today? Given all the recent Terror attacks are we making progress in defeating ISIS and other terrorist groups? 
In the ongoing War on Terror, the worldwide effort to break up terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS is a big step forward. Even with these successes, recent attacks like the one at Manchester Arena and the one at Kabul University show that the danger is still there. During the War on Terror, steps taken to fight terrorism have made strikes much less common, which has helped make the world safer overall. However, it is essential to stay alert and keep fighting terrorism, knowing that dangers will always be there and that ongoing work is needed to keep the world safe.

Edmar 

Domestic Policy

• If more than 60 percent of the federal budget is “mandatory spending,” what is left to cut? What economic goals do categories of mandatory spending support? What programs should be abolished or cut? Should any programs be expanded? If so, identify which ones and explain why they should be expanded by agencies such as the Red Cross. Comment.

Mandatory spending is when the government must pay for things that the law requires, like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. More than 60% of the federal budget must be spent, but some money can still be spent on military, education, infrastructure, and other government programs. This is called discretionary spending.

Depending on the scheme, the types of mandatory spending help reach different economic goals. As an example, by giving elderly and disabled people money, Social Security helps them stay financially stable.

Medicare and Medicaid aim to ensure that low-income and older adults can get health care, which is good for general health and well-being.

Other programs that require spending, like food stamps and jobless insurance, help people when they struggle financially. This helps keep society stable and lowers the number of impoverished people.

There is much disagreement about which programs should be canceled or cut, and the answer often depends on the person and the policy priorities. Some say welfare programs should be changed to not cost the government as much in the long run. In contrast, others say social safety nets should be made bigger to deal with rising income inequality and economic instability.

As for programs that should be expanded, groups like the Red Cross can help expand crisis relief and humanitarian aid efforts in the United States and worldwide. Increasing funds for disaster response and preparedness programs could lessen the effects of natural disasters and humanitarian crises, helping communities affected in meaningful ways.

• Social Welfare is the most debatable topic in American policy politics, yet many Americans are frustrated by those who sit and collect a check every month without any desire to improve themselves. I often wonder if welfare creates more poverty and laziness. Comment.

First, it's essential to understand that most people depend on welfare because they must, not because they want to. Many people who get welfare have problems with the system, like not having a job, having low pay, having a disability, or other things that make it hard for them to support themselves and their families. People and families having difficulty making ends meet and providing basic needs can depend on these services.

Also, studies examining the effects of aid programs show that they are usually only there to help for a short time and not for good. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and similar programs have strict rules about who can get help and how long they can get it. This is done to encourage people who get help to find work and become self-sufficient. Studies have also shown that having access to social aid programs can help people get out of poverty, improve their health, and finish school.

It's reasonable to worry that welfare programs might have unexpected effects, like making people less likely to work or keeping them dependent, but the facts don't always back up these claims. A lot of people who get welfare are actively looking for work and use aid programs to get ahead.

In the end, fighting poverty and inequality needs a multifaceted approach that includes policies that help people get jobs and support for education, healthcare, cheap housing, and social welfare. By dealing with the reasons for poverty and helping those who need it, society can work toward making it fairer and more inclusive for everyone.

• Comment, What went wrong? Is Florida heading toward a crisis, and why?

The video "Breaking Point: California's Homeless Crisis" shows how the problems that are causing so many people to be homeless in California are complicated and diverse. A lack of affordable housing, mental health problems, drug abuse problems, and unequal income are some of the things that have made the situation worse.

One of the video's main points is how the cost of housing in California has increased much faster than wages, making it harder and harder for people and families with low incomes to buy housing. Also, cuts to mental health services and not enough help for people who are struggling with addiction have made the problem worse, making it more common for homeless people to have untreated mental illness and drug abuse.

Also, the movie shows how hard it is for local governments to help homeless people because they don't have enough money, time, or political will. Even though shelters and support services are being offered, the crisis often exceeds the current facilities and resources, resulting in inadequate responses and worsening conditions for those who are homeless.

When wondering if Florida is on the verge of a similar crisis, it's important to remember that homelessness is a complicated problem affected by many factors unique to each area. Florida may have some of the same problems as other states, like being unable to pay for housing and insufficient social services. However, the homelessness crisis may be more significant and different in Florida.

The number of homeless people in a particular place can change over time depending on population growth, economic trends, and government policies. Florida can work to avoid a crisis and ensure the health of all its residents by investigating the reasons why people are homeless and implementing thorough plans to address housing insecurity, mental health needs, and economic inequality.

• What options you found to be off limits, and why?

What options did you select to solve the social security problem? Explain your choices.

Some possible answers to the Social Security problem are politically complex or not possible because people worry about fairness, usefulness, and public opinion. Some of these are making it harder to leave, cutting benefits, raising taxes on wages, and selling off government services. Policymakers usually consider several different ways to solve the problem. For example, they might gradually change the ages and formulas for benefits, check people's income to ensure they get help, change payroll tax rates or caps to bring in more money, or look into structural reforms. Fairness and social welfare must be considered to keep the government's finances stable. The best answer hits this balance. There are different plans with different ways to do things based on economic, demographic, and political factors.

Foreign Policy

• In recent years, the American armed forces have been called on to perform duties that are more humanitarian than militaristic, providing support after the Fukushima disaster, in addition to funds for drought victims in Ethiopia, COVID-19 vaccinations to countries who could not afford them, Ebola patients in West Africa, and earthquake victims in Nepal. Do we have an obligation to assist other countries experiencing a crisis, or should that be left to private relief agencies such as the Red Cross? Comment.

Whether or not the U.S. has a moral duty to help other countries in crisis is a complicated and multifaceted question with both ethical and practical aspects.

Many people say that the United States has a moral duty to help countries in need because it is a global superpower and a leader in humanitarian ideals. This duty is due to compassion, understanding, and solidarity with all people, no matter what country they are from. The global community is also very connected, which means that crises in one part of the world can affect security and prosperity worldwide. By helping countries in trouble, the U.S. can stop the spread of illness, ease suffering, and encourage stability, all of which are good for everyone in the long run.

Additionally, the United States should help with humanitarian efforts for realistic reasons. By tackling the causes of instability and insecurity abroad, such as poverty, disease, and natural disasters, the United States can help stop conflicts, slow the spread of diseases, and boost economic growth. This makes the world safer and strengthens diplomatic ties, which are very important for promoting U.S. values and goals worldwide.

But it's also essential to recognize how private aid groups like the Red Cross play in helping people in need. In times of disaster, these groups can often get help to people quickly and effectively because they have the knowledge, resources, and networks to do so. Governments and private relief groups working together can ensure that aid gets to the people who need it most, significantly affecting their efforts.

In conclusion, the U.S. may not be legally required to help other countries in trouble, but there are strong moral and practical reasons for doing so. By supporting people in need, the U.S. can live up to its ideals, make the world more stable, and further its interests in a world that is becoming more connected. Working with private relief groups can make these efforts more effective and ensure that the most needed help gets to the people who need it the most.

• The War on Terror has created a smaller faction’s terrorist groups than in the past. I wonder if we are making any inroads in the War on Terror or are, we creating more enemies against America.

The strikes on September 11, 2001, led to the start of the War on Terror, which has changed the way security is handled around the world. Even though some terrorist groups have been broken up and their operations have slowed down, it's essential to recognize the complicated and unintended effects of this long-running war.

One thing to think about is how terrorist groups are breaking up. At first, the War on Terror was primarily about stopping groups like al-Qaeda, but because of what they did, smaller, less organized groups have formed. Fighting these groups with standard military methods is more challenging because they often work independently and may have different goals and ideas.

In addition, the War on Terror has caused a lot of anger and reaction in some places, especially in the Middle East and South Asia, where military actions and drone strikes have killed civilians and caused other damage. In addition to making people more anti-American, these acts have also helped extremist groups recruit new members, which could make even more people hate America.

Concerns have also been raised about civil liberties and human rights during the War on Terror, especially regarding how people are spied on, detained, and questioned. Critics inside and outside the country have said that taking away these rights in the name of national security is wrong. This has caused people to worry about how it will affect democratic ideals and the rule of law in the long run.

It's essential to rethink how we fight terrorism and come up with new ideas that deal with the real reasons people become extremists, like political complaints, socioeconomic differences, and being taught to hate. This could include diplomatic efforts, plans to improve the economy, and focused actions to fix specific problems and weak spots that terrorist groups use to their advantage.

Even though the War on Terror has helped target terrorist networks and stop large-scale strikes, it has also created new problems and made things more complicated. To deal with the changing nature of threats and lower the risk of radicalization and violence in the future, we need a more nuanced and thorough approach.

• How safe is the world today? Given all the recent Terror attacks are we making progress in defeating ISIS and other terrorist groups?

It's hard to say what makes the world safe right now. Terrorist attacks have been stopped by better technology, sharing of information, and attempts to fight terrorism, but threats still come in many forms. Global security problems are getting more complicated because of things like the rise of lone-wolf attacks, internet radicalization, and the possibility of state-sponsored terrorism.

As the fight against ISIS and other terrorist groups moves forward, ISIS has lost a lot of territory and military wins in recent years, especially in Iraq and Syria. However, ISIS and other radical groups have shown that they are strong and flexible by changing into secret networks and continuing to attack in different areas.

It's important to understand that fighting terrorist groups takes more than just armed action. Long-term plans to combat terrorism must include addressing underlying grievances, boosting social cohesion, and fighting extremist narratives. International coordination and cooperation are also needed to share information, stop the spread of extremist ideas, and mess up financial networks.

There has been success in breaking up terrorist networks, but the threats are still changing all the time. To deal with the many problems that terrorism causes and keep everyone safe and secure around the world, we need to stay alert, work together, and be flexible.