Protection for Small Businesses

I was interested in finding out what kind of protection there was out there for small business owners from being computer hacked.  I was shocked to find out that forty percent of criminal computer hacks are on a small business, that is with 500 or less employees, according to Symantec Corp.  There is now a free online tool for small business owners to soup up their security and feel protected on the web.  The Obama Administration is all in for protection against cyper crime but for some reason lawmakers are still at odds over this.  I happen to agree with the Obama Administration on this one.  It is very important to protect everyone in a business world.  Yes there are some scandalous people in this world but with everyone being on the web and you being able to find someone with a click of a few buttons.  It is scary to me to think of all my information being able to be seen and stolen.  I am not sure why computer hackers set out to hack into someone ones computer, is it really to get information, to destroy a company that has had to fight its way through all of this big business world.  I am involved in a small business and to be honest if someone hacked into our computer they would not find much.  We have decided to keep a lot of stuff still on paper and continue the old fashion way.  Also, with a country based on entrepreneurs, I was shocked to find out that only fifty-two percent of small business owners have some sort of major security on their computers.  Last year alone $188,242 was lost in criminal cyper attacks on small businesses, according to Symantec and the National Cyber Security Alliance.  I am glad that most parts of the government are backing up protecting the small businesses of this country.  If you think about it that is the way this country started and it might just be the way it all ends up, with the simple way of life.

The Comparison: Bush vs. Obama

 Editorial : Now They're Blaming Bush for Obama's Campaign By Karl Rove

I chose to read an article in Fox News by Karl Rove called Now They're Blaming Bush for Obama's Campaign. I found it to be an interesting article because of the comparison between two totally different Presidents.  Rove starts off by saying over the weekend that National Journals, Charlie Cook and New York Times John Harwood are comparing Obama's re-election campaign to Bush's re-election campaign of 2004.  In 2004 independent voters viewed Bush as a skeptic, so Bush's campaign focused more on expanding its base than using huge resources on independents and undecided voters.  In a quick overview Obama is coming across as a skeptic and is repeating this action, this is according to Charlie Cook.  Rove agrues that Cook only described part of the Bush campaign.  The 2004 campaign also focused on persuading independents and swing voters.  Bush won out 48% of the independent voters and 11% of the Democratic voters.  John Harwood suggest Bush expoited social and national security issues, to throw off economic vulnerablitlities.  Rove questions Harwood's statement by stating the unemployment rate was 6% in 2003 and 5.5% in 2004 (unlike it is today standing at 9.1%).  The economy also grew 4.7% in 2003 and 6.4% in 2004, per the Bureau of Economc Analysis.  Rove states Obama is focusing on social issues to drive attention away from the economic one.  Rove does suggest Harwood hit the nail on the head on Obama's current strategy; the President is declining with college graduates, independents and young people.  Rove Believes President Obama's strategy is completely at odds with the re-election campaign strategy of President Bush.
I like this article comparing the two Presidents strategies.  I was a supporter of President Bush and I supported President Obama on some to most issues.  I believe if President Obama is changing his strategy to reach new voters good for him, it worked for President Bush.  But I do believe that the people of this country are in need of change and are possibly going to find it in a different canidate whose action can support their campaign.

Does Being Poor Affect Your Political Views?

Editorial:Feeling Poorer? You Have Plenty of Company

I decided to read an article in USA Today about the people of American and why they are feeling poorer and if it affects their political views.  In reading the article I found myself agreeing with the views of the writer.  I was informed that there is a higher number of people living in poverty since the Census started in 1959.  Income percentages have dropped in the poor, middle, and wealthy classes; this was surprising to me.  Economic discontent has political uprising all over the country.  In 2007, the United States was ranked number 10 of 12 in countries of citizens living better lives than their parents (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development).  All this information collected, as depressing as it is, shows how American citizens are moving away from political Washington and are more concerned about economic reality.  The economic decline was already taking place before the Obama Administration an will not be stimulated by another program.  This Recession exposes the United States dependence on the Government.  This problem can not have a quick fix.  Today Health Care and Social Security are 45% of federal spending.  Borrowing from the young  to pay the elderly is not working.  The elderly poverty percentage was barely changed at 9%, while the working age group was moved up to 14%.  Our political system caters to certain influential insider and a tax code that rewards certain people.  The Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street are looking like a promising turn, since all income classes are feeling the economic pressure.
In closing I do believe the elderly deserve to live the life they had before retirement and they should be able to afford nursing homes and assisted living, if that's where they end up, with good care with out being a  financial burden on family members.  I am glad to see that people of this country are worried about the economic part and not just if we elect a president to make history.

Presidential Campaign 2012

Obama Campaign Memo:Preview of a Highly Negative Campaign 2012?

I chose to read this article from The Christian Science Monitor because I haven't ever read a christian based newspaper.  I wanted to see if it would be different from just your everyday newspaper and have more positive things to say.  As I was reading the article I didn't see a whole lot of negative or picking sides but a straight forward and to the point.  I liked what I read and the way it was written.

 The article Obama Campaign Memo:Preview of a Highly Negative Campaign 2012 talks about a memo released by Press Secretary Ben LaBolt.  LaBolt starts off accusing Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Mass. Gov Mitt Romney of embracing policies the American people oppose.  LaBolt also mentions that Obama is trying to create jobs and put money back into the hands of the middle class, while the Republicans are trying to cater to the wealthy.  Republican Strategist Ford O'Connell suggest Team Obama is n the attack and making the Tea Party is number one enemy.  The Obama Campaign is also suffering a low approval rating. 

We will just have to wait and see how ugly this election of 2012 really gets.  I do wish that the candidates would keep to the facts and out of each others personal business.