In the annual speech, the President focused mainly on domestic issues, especially issues of the economy. He said that America has to be more competitive in the global economy and he suggested a number of reforms within the government that ought to be implemented.
Mr. Obama called for more investment in education, infrastructure and scientific innovation that would ensure that the country out-innovates, out-educates, and out-build’s the rest of the world. In the speech, the President suggested revenue and savings plans that should be adopted.
These are a partial government spending freeze that is projected to save up to $400 billion over the next ten years, removal of billions in tax breaks for oil companies, decrease in health care costs, including Medicare and Medicaid, reform for Social Security, merging, consolidating, and reorganizing the activities of the federal government, and lowering of corporate tax rate.
In order to reduce further the expenses of the Americans, the president promised to provide eighty percent of Americans with high-speed rail access within the next twenty-five years, ensure that one million electric vehicles are available in five years, increase the source of the country’s energy to clean-energy sources by 2035, and encourage investments in biomedical research and information technology.
In illustrating the country’s economic recovery, Mr. Obama employed his most optimistic language. “Now we are poised for progress,” said Obama. “Two years after the worst recession most of us have ever known, the stock market has come roaring back. Corporate profits are up.
The economy is growing again” (Obama, para.10). However, despite the economic growth, the president acknowledged that many American citizens still lack jobs and that more attention need to be focused on creating job opportunities for the citizens of the country. Mr. Obama reminded his listeners that years ago, finding a good job was not as difficult as it is now since competition for the opportunities was low.
Get your 100% original paper on any topic done in as little as 3 hours Learn More However, nowadays, getting the same opportunities is more difficult because of technological improvements that have changed the way people live, work, and do business. Nonetheless, the president said that these should not impair the ability of Americans to get jobs since “no country has more successful companies, or grants more patents to inventors and entrepreneurs and America is the home of the world’s best colleges and universities” (Obama, para. 17).
This year’s State of the Union Address laid out the policy agenda of the Obama administration to bring reforms in the country for the next year. Focusing mainly on domestic economic issues, the speech was an attempt to shape the national political narrative to the advantage of the president in tackling the problems facing the country, considering his cratering poll numbers.
Mr. Obama admitted that the previous year was a failure since less effort was focused on creating jobs and building the economy. However, through the speech, the president aims to hit the reset button and spearhead economic reforms in the country.
Works Cited Obama, Barrack. “Obama State Of The Union Speech 2011.” Huffingtonpost.com. The Huffington Post, 2011. Web.
Why politics needs religion Report (Assessment)
Nursing Assignment Help Table of Contents Introduction
Arguments for keeping religion out of politics
Introduction Religion has influenced political decisions for the longest time in various states and vice versa. This has created an interesting relationship between the two actors whose weight is felt across governmental fronts, religious communities, pressure groups and political parties (Jevtic 63-64). This paper looks at the arguments for and against keeping religion in politics according to Sweetman’s study.
Arguments for keeping religion out of politics According to the study carried out by Sweetman (pp.115), there are about eight arguments on why politics and religion should not mix. Religious beliefs are viewed as irrational and therefore do not form a strong basis on which politics can be linked to. They are seen to defy the US constitution and this makes them dangerous since the public square must always remain neutral. The reason why religion must be kept out of politics is that it persuades people to subscribe to that religious experience and not all do so as some are atheists by choice.
In addition, some people view religious arguments as inferior and this further discredits their inclusion in politics (pp.121). Religion is also seen to lack an adequate basis to be used in liberal democracy and it seems inappropriate to base politics on other people’s revelations.
On the other hand, arguments introduced by believers are seen to undermine the freedoms of non-believers and a good example is the issue on whether to legalize abortion and euthanasia among other controversial issues. This brings in a conflict between the church and the state as the church is pro-life whereas the state could opt otherwise.
Political decisions thus made would impact negatively on religion as they defy what is appealing to it. However, Sweetman (pp.128) shows the important role played by religion in politics citing that the secular arguments are not convincing enough to rule out the religious arguments.
He sees the religious arguments as rational enough to stand firm against the provided secular arguments and in this regard, religion has a right to voice its opinions on the aforementioned issues of euthanasia and abortion among others. Life is a precious gift from God and no one has a right to take it away apart from Him (pp.141).
The secular arguments could therefore only be meaningful if those who coin them can be able to convince the religious fraternity satisfactorily that their arguments fall short. This Sweetman sees as impossible since he views the religious arguments on its inclusion in politics as rational and weighty enough to win the case.
Get your 100% original paper on any topic done in as little as 3 hours Learn More Secular arguments are too worldly and materialistic to form a solid argument against religion and that is the reason why they can never be taken as default. God can never be ruled out and neither can the existence of human beings and that is why secular arguments appear inferior. In a debate scenario, secularist arguments take a back seat since they are hard to spot as compared to the religious arguments that feature prominently (pp. 158).
Conclusion According to this study, it is evident that Sweetman answers the question of why religion must be included in politics persuasively. He discredits the secularist arguments citing that God cannot be ignored and this is the stand taken by arguments against the inclusion of religion in politics. He insists that it is possible for the secularists to have a spiritual life despite their stand on religion and this adds weight to the argument on why politics needs religion (pp.63).
Works Cited Jevtic, Miroljub. “Political Science and Religion.” Politics and Religion Journal, 1 (2007): 63-64. Print.
Sweetman, Brendan. Why politics needs religion: the place of religious arguments in the public. USA: Intervarsity Press, 2006. Print.