Jobless Rate Hits 8.9%

"U.S. Jobless Rate Hits 8.9%, but Pace of Losses Eases"
by Peter S. Goodman and Jack Healy

As anyone knows there are a lot of business that are having to close down or are having to lay people off because they just are not making any money. In April alone, there was about 539,000 jobs that were lost which means that about 8.9% people are not jobless in the US alone. This report was posted on May 9, 2009. That is a lot of people who lost their jobs in one month. The jobs lost is due to the economy and the recession that the US is in.

Some say that to recover from this recession that we are in could take anywhere from a month to even years, and there are some that say it could last for a ever long time. But the one thing that was very hopefully in the jobs lost this month is that the number were not as high as they thought that they would be. Analysis believed that the numbers were going to be a lot higher than what they were which to some means that the economy just maybe taking a turn for the best.


As the Labor Department says is that the nation's problems, the economy falling last fall looks like it is final coming to a stop, or as the said "had been arrested" because the reports were just that good.

The economy began to fall in the fall when one of the larges investment bank, Lehman Brothers, collapsed, that is when a lot of other businesses start to fall as well. In another words, once Lehman Brothers fall, the whole economy went with it. The recession that we are in now is told to be the worst since the Great Depression because there is should a high demand for goods but there really is no service or it is weak right now.


The April numbers look good but if you were to look at the numbers for February, the numbers were at 681,000 that is after they looked at the numbers because what was first reported was that there was 651,000 jobs lost and March also had to be revised because there was an report that 663,000 people lost their jobs but the number was really higher that at almost 700,000. The numbers for March were actually 699,000. That is a all time high because that means there will be more people filling for unemployment just to be able to live and pay their bills.


Part of the reason that April's number were so high is because the government started hiring a lot more people just for the preparation of the 2010 Census.


Even though there are some place that are hiring, experts believe that it could take many months or years just to get back to where we were before the fall of the economics. The experts also think that many businesses will be cutting about another 2 million jobs before the economy can even start to grow again and sit itself back to the normal scale that we once known the economy to be. The unemployment rate is believed to last until sometime in 2010 because of the fact that there are still a lot of places that are closing or trying to break even.


With the economy breaking down, millions of people are being forces to live with what they got meaning what money the bring home from their paychecks and not what they want to live like by borrowing money from their credit cards or from their home.


In December of 2007, there was more that 5.7 million jobs that disappeared from the US economy and most were sent over seas to other countries because they are willing to pay less over seas unlike in the US were the pay is higher.


When the economy started to fall, so did any pay raises. With there not being an increase in wages and people having to live with what they got, employees from factors, the malls, and even the stores are seeing a decrease in shoppers which means there are jobs lost because they too are not making an money and having people that are doing nothing is just a waste of money for a job that is not being done.

When President Obama took office, one of the things that he did was a package of about $787 billion dollars to help of the state and local government. But the money was a federal aid to help them out. Other things that the money was sent out to help out is tax cuts for those who are the worst off from the economy crash.


"The Federal Reserve and the Treasury have been pouring money into mortgage markets and other areas of finance, bringing down the costs of borrowing." What does that mean? That just means that they are trying to help everyone out. They are trying to slow down the borrowing rate and trying to help out those that are trying to borrow money. There are a lot of people that are borrowing money or are trying to mortgage their house just to get money to be able to live in their homes, pay bills, and make ends eat.


"The question is whether fresh job losses combined with continued declines in real estate prices will prompt millions more Americans to fall behind on their mortgage payments, leaving banks counting fresh losses and prompting them to pull back anew on lending." How many people will it be before they see that the mortgage is too high for someone to pay their rent but also that when someone losses their job, they don't have money to pay their mortgage so having some type of away out of this problem. If the banks loss out on their money because people can not pay their mortgage, that is money that they are out of, that is money that they are not getting to pay those that they also borrowed money from to be about to help those that have the mortgage. If anyone knows, when you get a mortgage loan, the bank borrows money to give you the loan which means that they are taking out a loan as will. So if they are not getting their money then they can not pay their loan back. In another words, when the banks can not get their money, there is a bigger problem because the banks lose out on their money which could mean that the economy could fall further and further down the line.

With all the job losses, the ones that are being hurt pretty hard are the manufacturing job with 149,000 jobs lose, the professional and business services are at 122,000 jobs lose, and the construction with 110,000 jobs gone. By race, African Americans were 15% o of jobs lost, teenagers were 21.5%, and the last was adult man with 9.4% jobs lost.


The one thing that the article does state is that these information is only for those that work full time and not those that were part time either because they had to have their hours cut short or because they could not land a full time job and all that they could get was a part time job. If they were to count the part time hobs then the rate would go up to about 15.8% but since they are working and getting paid, they are not part of those that are unemployed. If they were to take into count those that were part in March and those that did not have a job then the rate would be about 15.6.


Since the government started to track the unemployment in 1948, there have been many with out jobs. From their calculations, those that have not been working for about six months or more, the percent was at about 27.1% which from their records is the highest as of to date. That is really high for those that can not get a job because of the economy but where was the rate at last year before the economy failed like it did? That figure was not put in to the report that was done at the time of this article.


Some Economists say that even if businesses were to be hiring there still would be a major problem with the economy because of how many people right now do not have jobs. There is not a lot of businesses that can hire a lot of people even if the economy were to get better.


Since the Labor Department has been keeping track of the unemployment rate, we have been able to see how our economy shows what the job market is like. When you see that the economy is starting to go down, then you will start to see that there are a lot of jobs that are lost and you start to see prices going up. There are even times when you will have some companies that will give out pay cuts or cut hours down just so that they can keep their workers and they don't have to fire them and pay more to the unemployment for those that seek the government's help. Even with the government getting help for the Federal government, the government is still having a hard time with money and giving out the money to those that need the help.


With Obama even giving money out to the states and government, it still is not enough to cover for those that need help. It is not even help for companies that are going under and need help. With the banks slowly closing or trying to found money, any help that they can get, it still is not enough to help them out because there still is not enough money for those that need help paying their mortgage.


In all, even though the article is taking about the economy that crashed in the fall of 2007, showing what the economy looked like before everything started to fall apart. What were they like a year as of Friday?

Female Professors earn LESS than Males

"Study: Female Professors Earn Less Than Males"

by Pat Lohmann

In a study that was done at UNM, they found that the female professors were being paid less the the male professors and this is after Obama had signed into law that females and males get equal pay no matter what and let that is not the case for those that work at UNM.

The study was done by the Provost's Office which is called,"Faculty Compensation at UNM: Is the Reward System Equitable?" There was two parts to the study in which the first was done in 2007 and they found that the female professors made about 86.5 cent less than the male professors at UNM. What does that tell you about what UNM thinks about the female professors at UNM? When they what back to take a look at the study again in 2008 they found that for every dollar that a man makes, the females are paid about 81 cents. That is really low to be paying anyone for that matter. But that is what the Southwest Women's Law Center found for the females in Bernalilly County. But when they check for all of New Mexico, they found that for woman's pay to men is for every dollar, women make 78 cents. That is just as bad as UNM professors not getting paid that much.

The article as says that with there being about a 3% difference in pay, that just maybe there just might be some type of discrimination going on but they do say that this occurs mostly at the department level because the raises are recommended to the dean in which the deans then says yes or no to the raises amount. In the Arts and Science, they found that there is about two-thirds of men that are discriminated against women. What that could mean is that women are not that favorable in the Arts and Science department but that could also mean that there are not that many women that are welling to work in the Arts and Science department. The study never says why that this is so or what could be the problem int he Arts and Science.

The study also found that in other departments, if there were more than one-third women working, then for every male dollar, the females would make about $1.01. That is just a little bit higher than what was being said before but the case of the matter is that women are being paid less than men are.

The study also found that if there was less women in the departments, they were the ones that were paid 10% less to the male professors. Which that is saying that either way, the women professors are not getting the equal pay that they should be getting.

There are a lot more women that are working in the education fields than there are males and let they are not getting the paid that they should be getting. What I would like to know is that since Obama signed into law that if a female is equal to a male in the job place, are they, the women, now getting the same pay as males or are they still making less than males? The other thing that I would like to know is if there are any women that are making more than male in pay and if so why is that?

I would also like to know why it is that female professors are making less than males at UNM when they should be getting the same pay as males.

Nudging Views on Race, Obama

"Obama Is Nudging Views on Race, a Survey Finds"
by Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Marhorie Connelly



When you hear that an African American is running for presidency, what is the first think that you think of? There are a lot of people that when the hear that someone that is black is running for presidency, that there is something that is wrong with because there has never been anyone that is black running and plus all of the other presidents were white so having someone with a different race, was not something that you would hear or would think could happened. But the truth of the is is that this years presidential race had many first. You had a woman running, an African American, and a Hispanic running in just one election. That is something that was never heard of until the election of 2009.


When New York Times/CBS News did a poll of 973 adults over the course from Wednesday to Sunday. When doing the poll, blacks were oversampled with a total of 212 polled. There was a margin sampling error of plus/minus 3% points for everyone polled, and plus/minus 7 points for blacks. The reason for this is to see what the black community has to say about there being an African American running for presidency.


When asked about their opinion on on Bush's new policies on the interrogation tactics and if they are harsh practices, 62% said that the share Obama's opinion that the hearings were unnecessary. The way in which some of the interrogation went on, they were too hard and sometimes they were just against the law.


The article shows that when Obama first started to run for office, he had a low rate because of his race, but after 100 days in office, that has all changed. With his first 100 days in the office he had a 68% approval rate while Bush had only 56% at the same time as Obama. The poll is showing when Obama was first running and taking office, he was not popular but after only 100 days in office, that as changed. People are starting to see that it does not matter the color of your skin and all that matters is that you can get the job done right and get it done for the people in a way that helps them out.

There was about 48% that said Obama was keeping his promises that he made when he was campaigning, and there was 39% that said he was making progress om major promises that he made. These polls are showing that people are looking past the fact that he is black and are looking at what he is going to be doing for the economy. Having surveys showing how someone is doing in their job and showing that the person is making progress is showing that they are doing what they said that they are doing. This survey is showing that people can change and that they believe in the person that the have elected into office.

The other thing that the survey is saying and showing is that people are changing their minds on the fact that maybe it does not matter the color of your skin or your race and that what does matter is that you do as you say you are going to do and also that you believe that when they, the president, says that they are going to do a job, that they are going to do.

Yes, from the survey you can see that people did not believe in Obama when he first started to run for presidency, when he was elected to be the president, but after his first 100 days in the office, he does have a higher rating as well as a higher popular vote amongst those that were polled on their thought about Obama. Even some of those that did not vote for him because his race, are starting to change their opinion because of the fact that he is doing what he said he was going to do when he went into office but also because the fact that he is working hard to prove to the world that he is the right person for the job and that he is going to get the job done and not just for some of the people but for all the people because proving that he is the person that everyone wants, is what matters when it comes to the polls.

When it comes to the polls and what people think of you, having them in your favor is always the best thing to have because the polls tell you if you are doing a good job or not, but they also tell you where you need to improve yourself for those that are watching you and giving their opinions on you.

Economy Is Brightening

"Outlook on Economy Is Brightening, Poll Finds"
by Adam Nagourney and Megan Thee-Brenan




The polls are showing that the economy is getting better? That is something that I know that I love to hear and I think that just about anyone that is having the same hard time is loving to hear that the economy is turning around. but the question is is that if the economy is really going to start to turn around as much as they are saying that it is turning around. But the other question that comes up is if the turn around is going to last as long as they are saying that it is going to last or it is just for the time being? Or do we just have to pay it day to day and see what happens in the next few days.


In a survey that was taken by the New York Times/CBS News, they found that people approve Obama's handling of the economy, foreign policy, Iraq and Afghanistan, and we can not forget that people like the stimulus package that is to help those that are having a hard time.


in the poll, there was just about 31% that favored the view of the Republican Party which according to the Times/CBS polls, it is the lowest that it has been in the past 25 years that they have been asking this question. The survey was done through a national telephone with 998 adults, with there being a margin of sampling error of plus/minus 3% points. Only 998 people were surveyed for something that is really important, does that make any since to you that there would be such a low number of people that were interview? Was there more people that they were trying survey but they could not talk to them so maybe they just want with what they had at the time or was it because they wanted a low number of people.


With the economy the way that it is, 40% said that they had cut luxuries, and then there were 10% that cut back on necessities, but there was 31% that said the cut back on both luxuries and necessities. What does that tell you about were we are at right now if people are cutting back on necessities, that is saying that there is no money for people to be able to buy even a loaf of bread, milk, or eggs, that right there tells you a lot as to were we are at right now.

Just before Obama took the office, there was only about 15% that said the country was headed int he right direction but after Obama took office, the number went up to 39%. There was also about 79% said that we were headed in the wrong direction and not that number dropped to about 53% which is still high but the numbers are showing that people are starting to see that there is a change in those that believe in what Obama has planned for the country. When Bush was in his second month of his second term, the number was at about 42% in February of 2005, which means that more people believe more in Obama than Bush. That right there says a lot as well because the polls are showing that people believe more in the person that most thought was not going to make it as a president to someone that they believed in when the elected him into his second term.

when asked about the economy and it getting worst, before Obama, was at 54%, and after it is 34% today, and with there being about a 20% better where 7% in January, which is very low for anyone. What the 7% is saying that people did not think that the economy was getting any better and that we were headed to the worst economy recession that we have ever faced in a long time.

33% blame Bush for how the economy was and the place that we were headed while 21% blamed the financial institutions and there was a 11% that Congress was to blame for what happen to our economy.

What does it say when people truth more in their president, then they trust the Congressional Republicans? Well 3 to 1 trust more in Obama then they do with Congress, that says a lot for someone who should believe in Congress a lot more then the should believe in the president or is to be to even? Either way, at anytime you should have people believing in both the president and the Congress but when you don't then there is just a lot problem because of the fact that we should have trust in Congress but polls have spoken, we do not believe in Congress anymore.

When they were asked about his bail out plan for the banks, there was a 58% disapproval of his proposal, but when asked if it will benefit all Americans and not just bankers, there was a 47% that believe in the proposal but in February it was at 29%. If bailing out the banks helps the people, then it is OK for a lot of people but if it is just for the bankers, then don't bail out the banks because that money can and should be used for the people and not those that take the money.

"40% of Americans said they preferred a smaller government providing fewer services, while 41% preferred a bigger government with more services." What does that mean? I don't know what that means, can some please help me here. The way that I am seeing it is that people would like to have a small government that does not do much, but let others want a big government that what has control over everything and say what we do. But then again I could be wrong but I believe that the government should not be controlling everything that there should be a point when they just need to walk away and leave the people alone.

The economy looks like it is starting to improve but anyone that knows the economy, it can change in a second so it is just best to let the economy work slowly and let the economy slowly rebuild itself but of course it can always use help by having the president saying that there is money to help out those that are in need.

The article is showing that people have mixed feelings about how the economy is changing and how it is getting better. But at the same time, it is showing that people are really having a hard time just trying to make a living and to take care of their family on the little money that they have to buy food and bill their bills. It does show that it is really bad if you can not make rent or even buy the things that you need like, food or even water. The economy is in a bad shape but the stimulus plan is helping to chance things around and is helping those that need money to keep their houses.

Support for President

"Survey Reveals Broad Support for President"
by Jeff Zeleny and Megan Thee-Brenan


How many people do you believe support President Obama? You would be surprise that Obama has some support but not a lot of people support him as of right now.


In a survey done Feb. 24, in a national telephone conducted from Wednesday thru Sunday, there was 1,112 adults with a margin of sampling error of plus/minus 3% points.


Even though there are a lot of people that do support Obama, there are still some that are not that happy with some things that are being done right now. When Obama sign the $787 billion economic stimulus plan was for political reasons, which people said that he should focus on that he said he was going to do throughout his campaign and not be the middle ground for the Republicans but to be himself like he was when he was running.


"A majority of Americans, 55%, say they are making ends meet, with more than 6 in 10 concerned that someone in their household might lose his job in the next year." Meaning that people are having a hard time just being able to pay their bills or to be able to buy food. At the same time people are concerned that someone in their household could be losing their jobs because the economic, which means that they will have an even harder time making ends meet because of the falling of the economics.


In just the short month that Obama has been in office, 63% approve of his job as of right now, with a him being in the right positions for his economic policies. Even though some say that it is going to be hard to get out of this deep recession that we are in right now, they do believe that it could happen with a lot of people and people working together as one to bring the economy back up.


The polls show that there is a major concern when it comes to being about to pay their bills, or having money for that matter of fact and that is because of the economy that we are in right now, but it is also because it does not seem that anything is changing as of let for anyone, even though we have said that it is going to take a few years to get better.


Obama has said to everyone that we are on a long run to recovery in which 53% of the public believe that the economic stimulus plan that was signed into law will help improve things, but there are some that do not believe that anything will improve or will shorten the recession.


There are a lot of people that do believe that relief is on its why and that Obama is going all that he can do to help with the problem that we are in. People do support Obama and the plans that he has for the economy even though it is going to take a long time before that help is here and everything is back to the way it was before the problems. There are those that do not believe that Obama is going to make that much of a progress with the problems that we are facing right now but they do believe that it is going to be a very slow process to get back on the right road.


In all, the survey is showing that there are someone people who believe and those who do not believe that our economy is going to be recovering as fast as everyone thinks it will recovery. But those that do not believe, know that it is going to take months if not years for was to be back on track. The survey also shows that they believe that Obama is on the right track to helping us recovery in the long run.


Believing in something and having faith that things are going to change is all that anyone can hope for and that is what Obama wants from his country, and those that are around him because he is trying everything that he can to make sure that we are all taken care of and that everyone is doing okay even if it means having billions of dollars to help out those that are having hard times, as well as helping those out that can not pay their house mortgage because Obama knows that having a home and being able to pay your bills, and have food, is very important to help and to those in his country. Having the stimulus plan that Obama signed into law is going to help everyone that is having a hard by having money in the government to help you if you need help because as anyone knows there is not always free money to help you and there is not always a president that is willing to give you money to help you out when it comes to paying for your house.

Faith in Obama, but Mixed With Patience

"Poll Finds Faith in Obama, Mixed With Patience"
by Adam Nagourney and Marjorie Connelly


What do you thing about Obama when you first hear that he is running for presidency? What is the first think that comes to you mind when you hear about everything that he is planning on doing? There is a lot of things that come to you mind and there is a lot that you may or may not believe in when you hear that someone wants to do this and do that and people think that it is all talk but you have to believe in those on what they are saying and hoping that people will change their mind.


That's how it was with Obama when he was talking about his campaign for presidency. The New York Times/CBS polls did a telephone survey of about 1,112 adults that was conducted in January from the 11th to the 15th.


When Obama was elected to be the next president of the United States he had said that he was going to raise taxes for those that make over $200,000, improve the health care system, improve the economy, and pull the trips of out Iraq. Those are just some of the few things that Obama said that he is going to do for his country. But do the people believe that that is what he is going to do or do they believe that it is just all talk.

Even people were polled, about two-thirds said that they believed that the recession will last two years or more. When Bush left office with only 22% support from those that were interviewed, 80% believed that the nation is in the worse shape than what it was 5 years again, in which case, Obama inherited the crisis that Bush left behind because of mistakes that were made and now Obama is trying to fix the mistakes that were made.


When polled, there was 79% were optimistic that the next 4 years will be a good level for the new chief executive that would exceed that of the past 5 incoming presidents. Meaning that they believe that Obama is going to set a new standard for those presidents that are going to be coming in after his time in the office. But there were people that did not believe that Obama was the right person for the job and believed that McCain was better for the job because he was going to be like Bush. Meaning McCain is going to be doing the same things that Bush was doing well in office. So that would mean that we would have another 4 years of Bush.


"His favorable rating, at 60 percent, is the highest it has been since the Times/CBS News poll began asking about him." There are about 60% of the people that were polled that they favor Obama and what he is planning on doing for the country. People are starting to believe that Obama is the right person, and they even show support for who he has chosen for his cabinet with a 70% approval for them.


There is a show that 75% say that the economy will be stronger in the next 4 years than it is today when Obama took office, and 59% said that he will cut taxes for the middle class, and they do believe that he is going to be better then Bush was.


Last April, there were only 39% that said that things could be better in the next 5 years, but now there is about 61% that believe things are going to start to get better in the next 5 years. What changed from last April to now? Could it be that Obama is in office, or could it be that there is a whole new cabinet in office? If could be any reason in which the survey does not say why the people changed their minds from a year ago.


"In April 2007, 36 percent said it was more important to stimulate the economy, compared with 52 percent who chose the environment." What does that mean? People believe that having our economy in a better standing is somewhat more important than having clean air and having the environment helping us out to be able to live. Is having the economy more important than the environment? While from those that were polled three years go say that the economy is more important than having air to breathe.


There are people that do believe that Obama is the right person for the job of presidency. But there are still a lot of concerns for the economy and those that are having the hardest time making any money. About over half that was surveyed said that their income was just enough money to pay their bills. There is about 60% that said that they were very or somewhat concerned about how or if they were going to be able to pay their homes and how much it cost to keep their house up. But there was about 39% that said the decline in home prices affected them personally because that means that their rates could go up or that they could be picking up the cost of homes that are for sale in their neighborhoods. But also that if there are a lot of house for sale or a lot of people that are having a hard time, that effects their neighborhoods in that crime comes into their area.


There are those that do have mixed feelings about Obama but at the same time they know that they have to be patience with his plans because it is going to take a little while to be able to get everything done that he has said that he is going to be because change does not come in just one day it takes a while to get things done. Everyone knows that Obama did not have everything handed to him in perfect condition. So are people going to change their feelings towards Obama in the next few months or is the ratings going to stay the same?

Disapproval of Bush Unwavering

"Poll Finds Disapproval of Bush Unwavering"
by Megan Thee-Brenan



OK so if you are someone that really did not care about the the last president that we had or you started to think that just maybe he is not the right person for the leader of the US, you are just about like everyone else out there. As the time went on and as people started to really see Bush more and more, they started to realize that just maybe there was a mistake in reelecting Bush as the president. Even when Bush left office, he had no evidence that they public had any support for him and there was no show of confidences in Bush when he left office.


In a nationwide telephone poll done by New York Times/CBS, they did a poll about 1,112 adults starting on Sunday thru Thursday were there was a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3% points.


When doing the poll they found that when Bush was leaving the office, he was the lowest of any presidents since they started to poll as the president left office. In the last 8 years that Bush was in office his rating dropped to 22% were there was about 73% that disapproved of the performance over his two terms. That is the lowest from any president of the course of the years. I don't think that i have every heard of a president who people stop believing in towards the end of their term. I know that you hear about the people losing confidences in the president in the middle of their term but Bush is the first that people did not believe when he was leaving the office.


You had 34% of Democrats, independents and Republicans who not only disapproved of Bush but that they were also very critical of his performance as the president. When Reagan and Clinton left officer they had a higher rate with 68% of the people believing in them. They made many mistakes but also helped everyone out and let they have a higher rate then Bush. Even his father had a better rate then he with 54% of people believing in him. When Jimmy Carter left, he even had a better rate at 44%, then that of Bush. To me that says a lot to people who though that Bush was the best presidents for the US. But those that did believe in him at the time that they elected him, they were changing their minds on who the choose for the president and they were starting to think that maybe they made a mistake in believing in Bush.


When they were asked about is overall presidency, 17% rated him at very good or good but there was an 83% that were average or poor for those that they surveyed. That is pretty bad for anyone to get a rating that low. But when they asked about Clinton when he left office his ratings were at 59% and 40% and people were mad at him for what he did and lying that he did not have sexual relationships with another women but let he had a better rating then Bush did. To me that says a lot.


When people were surveyed on the economy and the war in Iraq, 72% disapproved of the management of the economy, and there was a 71% faulted on the away that he handled the war. People did show support when September 11th happened with a 90% support because of the terrorist attaches, but that we start to fall as time moved on.


The polling started with the Gallup with the administration of Roosevelt. Even though we have had many presidents in which they have made mistakes, Bush is the only president that has both a high and low for his approval rates. Bush's many have been somewhat good at one point in their life but the matter of the fact is that people started to see that there was a problem with having him in office but it just might be too late.

The President is not the only one that is being rated as far as it goes because the vice-president is even rated on what people think. The vice-president with Bush was even rated at a new low rate in his office time at 13%. That is at an all time low for both the president and vice-president to have a low of people showing that they support their president.


What does that say about those that were elected into office in the past 8 years? That people will start to really think about who the vote into office, and instead of just going with who the believe is going to be better at the job, they will listen to everything that they have to say and then choose who could be the best and who could help us as a country.

Obama Gaining Among Bush Voters

"Pools Show Obmam Gaining Among Bush Voters"
by Jim Rutenberg and Marjorie Connelly



When you hear that we had an African American running for presidency, there will be some people that don't like the fact that we could have a President that is not white but the truth of the matter is that Obama is African American, and that he stands for those that want a different leader and world.


People did not believe in him as a president because the color of his skin. There were about a third of voters that said the would not vote to Obama because of the fact that he is black and not white. That is a lot of people who are choosing color of skin over who the person is, but also saying that if you are not white you should not be accepted because that is what society says is the way of life. Yes, at first people did not like the fact that there was, is an African American running for presidency but the truth of the matter is that those that had voted for Bush were starting to like Obama and supporting him.


But when people were polled by the New York Times/CBS News showed a different story. When he first started off his support was low but as time went up and as people started to listen to him and hear what he had to say, he had about a 51% support over McCain.



The poll was done through a nationwide telephone poll that was done from Sunday thru Wednesday. There was about 1,154 adults but 1,046 were registered voters. The margin of sampling errors was about plus or minus 3% points.


When people were asked if the votes were held today, October 24, 2008, who would the vote for? The numbers for Obama was 52%, and McCain was about 39%. When people reelected Bush into office, his highest support came from those that had income higher the $50,000 a year, married women, suburbanites, white Catholics, which now supported Obama in his race against McCain. When the polls were first done, they were surveyed after they had voted. In the week before October 24, there was a show that about 51% voted for Obama and 38% voted for McCain with a similar margin of victory as before.

One of the questions that was asked of the voters was if they believe the Obama was ready or not. The poll showed that 49% said that they believe he is not ready to take the officer, but now they believe that he was 44% not ready. As for McCain, there was a 64% believing that he is ready for office.


There was about 46% that they held unfavorable views of McCain where he had 39% favorable view of him. That was the highest level that anyone has ever had. Obama had a favorably view of about 52% and 31% unfavorably view of him.


Even though there were a lot of people who did not like or care for Obama for what ever reason there was, the one thing that they all believed in is that he could be the person that can make a change for everyone in our country. Having someone that could change the way we are is the one thing that everyone just about agree on. The country wanted someone that was different and they all know that we needed a change for the better. That is what people were seeing in Obama. Even though there were someone people who did not think that he was ready or right for the position, but in all the change is what we needed and that is what they saw in Obama because they believed that McCain was just like Bush which is what the people did not want.


The polls that were done are showing the changes in peoples opinion of Obama and McCain during the election for presidency of 2009. The polls did jump around a lot and there were some people changed their opinion on Obama as well as McCain.


The article did show from the last two presidents and were they were at the same time that Obama and McCain were at at the time of their elections. But in all they talk about all of the different parts of the election in which people changed their opinion on who they will vote for our who the favored the most. Even though the polls were jumping around and people were changing their means a lot, the polls keep up with the information and showing not just Obama's rates but also showing McCain's rates when they are reporting on Obama. You get to see what people are thinking about during the election, and you get to see who is voting for who and what their opinions are for them. Either way, the article lets you see how people are going to vote, how their opinions are changing, and how their thinking of a new era.


Showing how people are thinking and how their opinions change always shows you just how people can change their opinion in just one minute because of the fact that there was something that they either saw or heard that changed their minds on their way of thinking.. The article does not show how the got their figures just that they did a telephone survey of people that were voters and non-voters. What formula they used to figure out the percentage for each other the questions that were asked of the interviewee.

UNM Budget Cut's...really?? part 1

"Budget Summit brings cuts, tuition increase: Regents approve 5 percent tuition increase for 2009-10"

by Leah Valencia



So anyone who comes to UNM knwos that for a few years now, the tuition rate has increase and there are some people who do not like that there is an increase like what seems like every 5 minutes, I would say like every 5 second at the rate we are going. But anyways, every year UNM increase the tuition rate and every year you have people who try and fit the increase but they never seem to win and that could be partly because they are just students here at UNM and no one really listens to students. There are those that do fight for the increase and I think that that my because they just want more money or just because they want to see how far the student are going to go before they leave UNM because they can affort to come to school here anymore, that should not be much longer.



Will the tuition will be going up only 5% for those that are in state students, which does not seem that bad but when you look at last years tuition which was about $4834 and now it is going up $268 which means $5102. But remember that is for someone that is in state undergraduate student. If you are out of state, you will not be so lucky because their tuition is going up 10% next year which means they will be paying $1547 more than last year so their total is $17255. WOW that is an arm and two legs and why don't we just through in the other arm, maybe a lung, and their first borne child just to be able to pay for school. That is what we have to pay for just tuition, then you add in the books and supplies and food to live, you might as well as just give your life to UNM just to come here.



There is one person or maybe many who think that this tuition increase is wrong. Maria Probasco was quoked as saying that "this is an inopportune economic time for tuition increases." For all of those who agree, please raise your hand and stand up now to voice your opionion but you just may not be hear but you can still say something like Procasco is saying.



Is this something that really needs to happen now with our economic failing so bad that some people can't even afford to by bread? This is something that we don't need but according to regents here at UNM, we need it to balance the budget sheets. How about doing this to the budget sheets, everyone from the president of UNM, all the vice presidents that we have, the regents, oh and lets not forget the football coach and basketball coach who can also take a cut, take a 45% cut in their pay for one whole year and there you go you have the money that is needed for the balance sheet. They are over pay right now so they can take a cut. There is one regent that is not to happy with the increase . Mel Eaves said, "borad would like the budget to provide enough resources to preserve UNM's quality of education without financially overburdening students." Does anyone remember what education is anymore here at UNM? I did n't think so but Eaves does remember what education is about but it still is not enough because we will be paying more for an education that seems to be going down hill.



According to what the newspaper state, and I am going to quote it here, "Legislature requires that all state universities raise their tuition to avoid a decrease in state funding. This year, a 2.5 persent increase is required for in-state students along with an 8 percent increase for out-of-state students." If that is the case they why 5% in-state and 10% out of state increase? Does that make any since to you? No that does not and no where does it say why it has to be 5 and 10 why not 2.5 and 8 like "the Legislature" said they should be? Ok this is something that the Legislature can do, see how bad the education is getting because of the increase's and maybe they will rethink about the increase every year because it is killing the students.



Why is UNM increasing the tuition higher then the Legislature is asking for them to increase? That is a quiestion that I would like answered but no where is this quesation answered just the this "president" of UNM saying that everyone in New Mexico is increasing to the 5 percent, while that is only at the univerities levels. Is he truly 100% beliving that this is the why to go with UNM? Does that truly make any sence that just because one schooling is doing that all the school have to do it? It is like saying that if one jumps off the bridge, we all have to jump off the bridge. So then who should go first???? Not me!!!!



I just find it a little weird that last year, the tuition increase was only 4.85% for in-state students, why could they not do the same this year and they just take pay cuts?



Even though this article is good at givening some details, I would have like to have heard from the students because int he end we are the onces that are getting scorwed over and we pay the price of not being able to afford anything because prices are so high. I would like to know what the students at other univeristies think about the raise in tuition for them but mostly want UNM student think and their feelings about having to pay what seems like an arm and a leg and even maybe your first child to be able to come to school here. Even with getting money for help, that is still not enough to pay for school becasue UNM puts a cap on how much money you are allowed to have per term so that is double scrowed for us. It is fair that this keeps happening to use? No, it is not because if this keeps happening, there will be no more student that can come to school.

I am going to state this one more time...where are the students opinions? We are the ones that do come here right? So why is that it that there was no interviews done with the students on a topic that effects them the most since they are the ones that have to pay the bill. I would also like to know if the regents ever asked any students what they thought about the tuition increase also did they every think that raising the tuition could cause student not to come here or are they just doing what the Legislature wants them to do? you would think that with how the economic is going right now that the Legislature of all people would understand that there just is no money for anything but for the regents and others to want to inrecase the tuition shows just how much bad taste they have. Wasn't it the presiden tof UNM who "tried" to take a pay cut a few weeks back?

In all this is just another way for UNM to get more money out of those that have no idea of what is going on or for those that can not afford school as it is right now.

McDonald's profit up

"McDonald's 1Q profit rises nearly 4 percent"
by Lauren Shepherd

With all the economic problems that we have been having in the last few months, I am suprise that there are any company's that can report that they have any type of profit but as i read this article posted by the AP, McDonald's has a 4% profit for their 1Q.

According to Chief Executive Jim Skinner, their majory sales is of their chicken, breakfast, and beverages. Their new chicken menu and espresso drinks are what are helping to boost sales for several quarters now because more and more people what their espresso, which is even out ruling Starbucks which them themselves are lossing out in profits because of the economic problems, as well as cutting jobs, and closing stores. McDonald's have analysts who say that their new espresso could make fast-food chain a big player and even believe that they will rule over Starbucks.

Last year an Oak Brook based McDonalds and about $946.1 million and this year they have earned $979.5 million. Even over seas their sales are up at about 4.3% in their first quarter with the US being 4.7%. Even though that is not a big jump up or even a big raise in their first quarter but it is a raise of profits that could help the economic.

There were some place that did not see an increase in profits is Germany and China. There have been some places that closed down because some people would want to eat at home or eat somewhere that is cheap. Even thought McDonalds does have a cheat menu from somewhere places but someone people do believe in that they can save more money by going somewhere that sales food every cheap, which is somewhat way some would just eat at home then eat out.

They did say that once the economic start to get back to normal and gets better, they are planning to launch their new handburger, the Angus Burger, in all of their location. They believe that their Angus Burger will sale big and that a lot of people like them. But my mom tried their Angus Burger and she did not like it at all. As she said, the burger tasted horribly and she would never eat one again because there was not flavor.

They state that when they change currencies from the foreign countries, they lose out in revenues because of the translation. When they change currencies their sales fall about 10%, which if their sales are $5.61 billion it comes out to $5.08 billion.

I don't care to eat at McDonald's and some times the food is just like eating left overs that don't taste good after being rewarmed up many times. But the fact that their menu is cheap, a family of four can eat for about $25.00, well just about anywhere else it can cost $30 or $40. I know that as being a student, I can eat at McDonald's for $5.00.

The one that the article does not say is what the dollar amount of the item that sold the most. All that the article states is that they have three items that are the best saling items but they don't state how much they made off of any of the items. They also don't say what their top saler is for the quarter. They also don't state which one of their stores had the strongest sales for the quarter or which state brought in the highest percentage from their sales. Also no where in the article do they have an customers opinions on what is their best item that they have or what people think about there being a profit. They also don't state what is the age group of those that eat at McDonald's. There are different age groups adn it could a mix of different age groups or it could be just one age group that is making up the profit of their food.

There is some research information missing in that they don't have any age group, which state had the highest profit, or what saled the most for the profit. Yes, they do state that they have three items that are their best salers and that their espresso have a high profit but what is that profit? It is 2% or 3.5%? They have a profit gross but they don't state what was their hightest profit growth was.

What could their sales be next quarter if they are reporting an increase in sales this time? They do not state if they think that they will have an increase in sales for next quarter, if they will stay the same, or fell. That would be something that they should somewhat think about because if they are predicting that they are doing good then they should be able to know if they are going to be doing good for next quarter.

The article does end that when this article saying that "Its shares fell $1.38 or 2.5%, to close at $54.25 Wednesday." What does that mean? They don't say anything at to what that could mean or what they are talking about here. To me they are saying that when they closed on Wednesday, April 22nd, they had a lose in profits, or are the saying that if their shares fell this is what could happen? The last part of the article is not clear at all and is somewhat confussing because they are saying that they have a profit but then they are saying that their shares fell. They need to make this point a little more clearer.