Spending $ on someone else the key to happiness?
[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/03/21/art.sharing.money.gi.jpg caption=]
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Turns out money really can buy happiness. But there's a catch: you have to spend it on someone else.
A new study conducted by Harvard Business School and the University of British Columbia finds that spending as little as $5 a day on someone else could make you significantly happier. I'll give you my address at the end of this.
Experiments on more than 600 Americans found people were much happier when they spent the money on others even if they thought they'd be happier spending it on themselves.
One of the lead researchers points out that this study goes along with a growing body of research that shows that helping others is the best way to help yourself.
Another expert suggests that it's experiences, not possessions, that actually make people happier. So if you buy yourself a new car or TV, the elation wears off relatively quickly. But if you take a friend out to lunch, you'll feel good longer. She also suggests that kind acts make you think that people are grateful and that is also linked with happiness.
Meanwhile, the study – published in this week's edition of the journal Science – may also explain why people aren't happier even though America keeps getting richer.
Here’s my question to you: Is spending money on someone else the key to happiness?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Has the Reverend Jeremiah Wright episode changed your opinion about Barack Obama?
Click the play button to see what Jack and our viewers had to say.
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Despite Barack Obama's well-received speech on race this week, there are signs that the comments by his longtime pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright – that were played over and over again on cable news – may have hurt him.
A CBS News poll shows that among those voters who had heard about Wright's statements, 30% say they have a "less favorable" view of Obama. 2% say "more favorable”, while 65% say their opinion of Obama is unchanged.
When it comes to Republican voters, 47% say they have a more negative view. And as for independents, a key voting block, 36% feel that way.
The survey also shows Obama's unfavorable ratings are up – at 30% now compared to 23% last month.
However, it's important to note that this poll was taken before Obama gave his speech on Tuesday.
And here's another sign that the pastor's comments may have harmed Obama's candidacy: a new Gallup tracking poll out today shows Clinton ahead 48% to 43% in the nomination race. This is the second consecutive day that this tracking poll shows Clinton with a "statistically significant lead" in more than a month.
Here’s my question to you: Has the Reverend Jeremiah Wright episode changed your mind about Barack Obama?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Is Hagel right that it may be time for a new political party?
[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/03/20/art.chuck.hagel.gi.jpg caption=" Sen. Chuck Hagel at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing."]
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The U.S. needs independent leadership and maybe even a new political party.
Senator Chuck Hagel, the Nebraska Republican and one of the very few class acts in Washington, has a new book out, "America: Our Next Chapter." Hagel writes, "In the current impasse, an independent candidate for the presidency, or a bipartisan unity ticket... could be appealing to Americans."
Hagel, who is a Vietnam veteran, also suggests that the war in Iraq might be remembered as one of the five biggest blunders in all of history. He says that the invasion 5 years ago was "the triumph of the so-called neoconservative ideology, as well as Bush administration arrogance and incompetence."
Hagel says he held one of the Senate's strongest records of support for President Bush, but his standing as a Republican was still doubted because of his opposition to the administration's foreign policy – one he sees as "reckless" and "divorced from a strategic context."
Hagel announced last year that he wouldn't run for a third Senate term or seek the Republican nomination for president. His name was often mentioned as a potential running mate for New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg on an independent presidential ticket. But last month, Bloomberg said he wouldn't run.
Here’s my question to you: Republican Senator Chuck Hagel says the U.S. may need a new political party. Is he right?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
How likely is it Obama will be the Dems’ nominee?
Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton at the CNN/LA Times/Politico Democratic presidential candidates debate at the Kodak Theatre in January. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
"If there is a road to victory for Hillary Clinton, it is a fairly narrow one."
That's according to a piece in today's New York Times.
It suggests Clinton needs three breaks in order to grab the nomination from Barack Obama. First, she needs a significant victory over Obama in Pennsylvania on April 22nd in order to support her argument that she can deliver big general election states. Then she needs a lead in the popular vote by the end of June. And lastly, Clinton has to convince superdelegates she's the best candidate.
But here's the problem: winning the popular vote seems a nearly impossible task for Clinton if these revotes don't happen in Michigan and Florida. And at this point, it looks very doubtful they will happen in either state.
Also, Clinton's campaign had hoped the uproar over comments made by Obama's pastor would make voters and superdelegates question his candidacy. It might be too early to tell, but it seems like Obama's speech on race was well-received and praised, even by some Clinton supporters.
Meanwhile, President Clinton's former political adviser, Dick Morris, is even less optimistic about Clinton's chances. He writes, "Senator Barack Obama has already won the Democratic nomination. It's over." Morris suggests Clinton can't catch Obama in the pledged delegate count, regardless of what happens during the rest of the primary season. He goes on to say the superdelegates won't override the will of the voters quote "unless Obama is in jail."
Here’s my question to you: How likely is it that Barack Obama will be the Democratic presidential nominee?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
How dangerous is it if Americans are less aware of Iraq losses?
Click the Play Button to see what Jack and our viewers had to say. An honor guard carries the casket of Army Maj. Alan Greg Rogers to his burial service at Arlington National Cemetery March 14, 2008 in Arlington, Virginia. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
On the 5th anniversary of the start of the Iraq war, the U.S. has lost 3,992 troops. But it turns out a lot of Americans don't know it.
A new Pew poll shows only 28% of those surveyed know that almost 4,000 U.S. service members have died in Iraq. Almost half think the death toll is 3,000 or less, and 23% think it's higher. Last August, more than half of those surveyed knew how many Americans had died in Iraq.
The poll found public awareness of what's going on in Iraq has dropped as the news media have paid less attention to the war. For example: during the last week in January, 36% of people surveyed said the story they were following most closely was the political campaign. 14% said it was the stock market. 12% said it was the death of actor Heath Ledger. And only 6% said the story they were following most closely was the war in Iraq.
And that's sad... because if people aren't paying attention to what's going on in Iraq, then maybe they aren't quite as outraged about the almost 4,000 young Americans we've lost, or the almost 30,000 U.S. troops who have been badly wounded, or the more than 80,000 Iraqis who have died, or the more than $500 billion the U.S. has spent on the war – money that would have paid for the economic stimulus package with more than $300 billion left over.
Here’s my question to you: How dangerous is it if Americans are becoming less aware of U.S. losses in Iraq?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Where is Clinton left without revotes?
[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/03/19/art.hc.troopshome.gi.jpg caption=" Sen. Hillary Clinton delivered a speech on Iraq at George Washington University, Monday in Washington DC."]
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Hillary Clinton is challenging Barack Obama to a rematch in Michigan and Florida.
Clinton made a last-minute trip to Michigan today to emphasize her support for a re-vote there, saying it's "wrong, and frankly un-American" not to have delegates from the two states seated at the convention. She also is suggesting that the outcome of the general election may be at stake if Democrats don't count these delegates. Of course, the DNC penalized both these states for moving up their primaries.
Obama, whose name wasn't on the ballot in Michigan, hasn't yet supported or opposed the plan, but his campaign has raised a number of questions about the proposal. They say that a revote wouldn't make such a big difference in the overall delegate count and that the Clinton campaign is trying to change the rules to suit itself.
As for Florida, plans fell apart over the weekend when the state's Democratic Party said there won't be any revote.
For Clinton, though, many see the revotes in the two states as a necessity. Big victories would help her close the gap with Obama when it comes to pledged delegates as well as the popular vote. Two more victories would also bolster her argument to superdelegates that she can deliver key states.
But the argument to seat Florida and Michigan's delegates based on results from January seems to lose some weight when you consider this: a new study by a Wharton professor suggests that about two million more people would have voted in Michigan and Florida if they thought their votes would have counted.
Here’s my question to you: If neither Florida nor Michigan holds revotes, where does that leave Hillary Clinton?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Bush administration making long-term plans for Iraq?
U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney and the top US commander in Iraq David Petraeus talk at Baghdad airport Monday, March 17, 2008. (PHOTO CREDIT: AP)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Today of course marks 5 years since the United States invaded Iraq, but if it's up to the Bush administration, our involvement there will stretch far beyond the 5 years.
Vice President Dick Cheney has been in Iraq this week playing let's make a deal when it comes to our nation's long-term role in a country we now occupy. Cheney came away from two days of private meetings with promises from Shiia, Sunni and Kurdish officials to firm up a new blueprint for relations between the two countries.
The deal would replace a U.N. Security Council resolution that expires in December – you know, the same time that President Bush leaves office. The administration insists the deal will not create permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, set terms for U.S. troop levels or tie the hands of future presidents.
And in keeping with the arrogant, unilateral way it has conducted business for more than seven years, the administration says it probably will not get Senate approval for this plan. Why should the American people have anything to say about it?
The administration says that's because it's not a treaty that provides Iraq with specific security guarantees. Democrats in Congress aren't happy. Some lawmakers have proposed legislation that would make the administration's agreement null and void without Senate approval. Given the Democrats' overwhelming lack of success in stopping President Bush from doing anything, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Here’s my question to you: Should the Bush administration be negotiating long-term agreements in Iraq without the consent of the American people?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
How is the shaky economy affecting you?
Real estate signs sit in front yard of four houses on one in Detroit, Michigan. The Detroit area, had the highest foreclosure rate in the nation last year. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The United States' economic problems are getting worse.
Americans are grappling with higher costs for food and gasoline, while their adjustable rate mortgages go up and the value of their homes goes down. The economy is losing jobs – 63,000 of them last month. The dollar continues to hit record lows against foreign currencies, like the Euro, while rising commodity prices signal inflation.
The nation's fifth largest investment bank, Bear Stearns went belly up. And the Federal Reserve, on a Sunday night, struck fear into everyone's heart by suddenly announcing that the government is going to make emergency loans available to Wall Street firms in addition to banks.
Why Sunday night? What did they know that couldn't have waited until Monday during regular business hours, when the fear quotient of their decision could have been greatly reduced?
Similarly, the Fed's race to dramatically lower interest rates in big chunks – for example, today's reduction of three-quarters of a percentage percent – also raises the question whether things are worse than we're being told. A recession is all but inevitable and it could be long and deep.
A new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll shows 65% of those surveyed are very concerned about inflation. 59% are very worried about unemployment. 48% point to the drop in home values and 40% to the drop in the stock market.
Here’s my question to you: How is the growing bad news about the economy affecting your daily life?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Would Clinton do anything to win?
Click the play button to see what Jack and our viewers had to say.
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Barack Obama's campaign suggests Hillary Clinton will do just about anything to win, and that includes destroying the Democratic Party.
The Politico reports that Obama's chief strategist David Axelrod calls Clinton "the ultimate Washington inside player" who keeps trying to change the rules:
"When they started off, it was all about delegates. Now that we have more delegates, it's all about the popular vote. And if that does not work out, they will probably challenge us to a game of cribbage to choose the nominee."
Another senior aide thinks Clinton is willing to destroy the party as long as she gets the nomination.
Clinton's campaign called these comments "unhelpful." Communications director Harold Wolfson says he doesn't think either side would destroy the party, that the primary process isn't over yet and we should "let democracy run its course."
At this point, the Clinton campaign is holding out hope that she can top Obama in the popular vote. And if that happens, she'll then try to convince superdelegates to give her the nomination. Both Bill and Hillary Clinton are calling on party leaders to look at more than just pledged delegate counts when they pick their nominee.
Meanwhile, a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll shows a majority of Democrats prefer Obama over Clinton: 52% want Obama, 45% prefer Clinton.
Here’s my question to you: Barack Obama’s campaign suggests Hillary Clinton would do anything to win, including destroying the party. Do you agree?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Does Obama’s race matter?
[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/03/18/art.townhall.pa.gi.jpg caption=" Senator Barack Obama speaks to supporters at the Community College of Beaver County yesterday in Monaca, Pennsylvania."]
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Barack Obama's speech today on race may have been a blessing in disguise.
Perhaps the biggest question surrounding the senator from Illinois was whether he had the stomach for the kind of bare knuckle campaign he is likely to face at the hands of the Republicans if he is the nominee. Pastor Jeremiah Wright gave Obama the chance to "show us the money."
In the face of a withering barrage of taped replays by the media of Wright's comments, Obama had little choice but to suck it up and face the issue head on.
Obama wrote the speech himself. No speechwriters. At one point he said that while he absolutely disagrees with some of the things Reverend Wright said, he can't disown his pastor anymore than he can his white grandmother… a woman he says sacrificed for him and helped raise him, but who also confessed her fear of black men who walked by her on the street and who used racial stereotypes. Obama said, "These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love."
In retrospect, this episode may have given us all a chance to see how Obama responds when the going gets a little rougher than what he's probably used to. The Pastor Wright incident may have been the baptism by fire that Obama needed to seal his credentials to make the run for the White House.
Here’s my question to you: Does Barack Obama’s race matter to you?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments