The weekly assignment consists of five parts:
1) Read the assignments. This week's first reading is Public Agenda's Federal Budget reading and gives a strong overview of the deficit. If your issue is not the deficit, try to find a reading that connects your issue and the federal budget. This would help you the most in your future research. The second reading is from Chapter 1 from The Dictator's Handbook.
2) Take Cornell Notes on the readings. I will collect these notes on Friday in class.
3) Find another credible source on the internet that connects to the reading above. You can use any of the sites I have listed on the right, or more general news sites like nytimes.com.
4) After you read the source that you find, answer the following questions as a blog entry below:
- Write a summary sentence for the text you found.
- How does the text connect to that week’s topic or to the other text you have read?
- What evidence do you have that the text you found is credible?
- Does the author present strong evidence to support his/her argument? Provide an example.
- Create a short synthesis paragraph on the one of the texts and your text.
Keep in mind that everyone else will see what you write below, so please keep it professional. This post is due Thursday, 10/25, by 5:00pm.
5) Come to class on Friday ready to discuss the reading and the text you found!
If you need support or have questions, my office hours are Wednesday and Thursday from 3:15-4:15 in Room 229.
In “Who Should Pay More in Taxes”, by Michael Sivy, the underlying theme is the deficit issue and how taxes may or may not solve the deficit. Several facts are highlighted as issues that contribute to taxes and the deficit like demographics and spending.
ReplyDelete“Who Should Pay More in Taxes” relates to “Public Agenda’s Federal Budget” because both articles surround the deficit issue. “Public Agenda’s Federal Budget” encompasses a general scope of the federal budget and deficit while “Who Should Pay More in Taxes” utilizes taxes as a specific lens to view the deficit. In “Public Agenda’s Federal Budget” there is several programs mentioned that contribute to the deficit like Social Security and Medicare. These programs produce mandatory spending that use taxes as revenue. These articles suggest that taxes and the federal budget go hand in hand.
The article “Who Should Pay More in Taxes” is credible because it comes from Times Magazine a major publication corporation that has an elite reputation. The author, Michael Sivy, is credible because he mentions the two sides of the argument. He presents the democrat perspective and the republican perspective. In doing so the author avoids a bias and just presents evidence. The author is aware of the misinformation when he states, “Both political parties have good reason to spin and obfuscate”. The author attempts to inform the reader of this so there are no inaccuracies of information.
The author of “Who Should Pay More in Taxes” presents strong evidence through the use of typical and statistical exemplification. The author attacks and dismisses a popular approach of taxing the rich when he states, “The affluent are paying too little, and yet they are paying more than anyone else”. The author suggests that by taxing the wealthy more would be unfair since they already pay more than anyone else. This does not answer the tax question of who should be taxed more. Moreover, there is statistical exemplification used to demonstrate views of two political parties. A democratic view is presented when it the author states, “Even the most liberal estimates conclude that such a policy would save less than $1 trillion over 10 years – or less than 10% of the deficit at current rates”. The Democrats solution to taxes would do little to help resolve the deficit. A Republican view is present when the author states, “It’s true that 46% of adults pay no federal income tax”. This suggests that a solution to the deficit would be to decrease the percent of people not paying federal income tax. References to two political party’s perspectives help strengthen the argument.
The democratic perspective in “Who Should Pay More in Taxes” and the Congressional Budget Office in “Public Agenda’s Federal Budget” agree that a portion of the deficit is because of tax cuts. The author in “Who Should Pay More in Taxes” states, “Central to the Democrat’s policy proposals is the claim that today’s deficits are largely the result of the Bush tax cuts”. This is imperative since in “Public Agenda’s Federal Budget” states that individual income taxes accounts for 44.3% of government’s revenue, individual income taxes has the highest percent of government revenue. “Public Agenda’s Federal Budget” also claims Bush tax cuts as a problem with the remark, “Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire at the end of 2012”. By eliminating tax cuts the deficit could be reduced to $2.8 trillion over the next ten years. Both sides can agree that eliminating tax cuts would help resolve the deficit, but it would be a small improvement. Reducing the deficit would require a combination of actions and sacrifices to make larger improvements for the present and the future.
A text related to this week’s topic on the deficit was the 2012 summary report from the Social Security and Medicare board of trustees. This report specifically talks about the past spending and actions concerning both Medicare and Social Security that are part of 36% of government spending the largest. However also have has the worst deficits in our current government that is affected by many current factors including the baby boom generation and unemployment.
ReplyDeleteThis article is related to deficit topic and the text “The Federal Budget” Because the text talks about government spending and how much of it is throws Social Security and Medicare. For instances the Report states “Social Security and Medicare are the two largest federal program” The article on the federal budget agrees when it states “the federal government spends two-thirds national debt” Both texted include the main government programs and support the fact that most of government spending is on healthcare related programs that are being missed used which is one of the leading factors of the country’s debt.
The Summary report of 2012 from the Social Security and Medicare board of trustees is a valid source because it was published on an official federal government website. That would only be published if looked over by government officials and would jeopardize the sits credibility and government reports made available to the public.
To prove its point the trustees used statistical data by stating that as of 2011 the cost of Medicare has grown around 3.0% and it will keep going up to a 5.7 % of the GDP by 2035. The GDP is that amount gross domestic product which is that amount of money each individual makes then has to pay taxes on it which is the percentage the amount individuals pay from their income. That shows how government would eventually have to resort to higher the taxes to solve these problems. That the author of “The Federal Budget” would agree with because it gives this as a solution to the debt problem to “raise taxes”. To bring money in for the country to solve its debt problems, instead of having to borrow money from other countries.
Both the text use strong facts evidence to give reader a real idea of the nations economical stand point. The Summary Report states that much of the countries spending on Medicare and Social Security is being missed used. “The Federal Budget” states how government has used the Medicare and Social Security “trust funds” which were meant to be persevered until the next few decades. That shows how government is miss managing the two most expensive programs it provides. Overall both texts help each other to further idea that government is miss using federal money that makes the deficit lager and weaken the nations economical status of the country.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-01-08/debt-equals-economy/52460208/1
ReplyDeleteThis week’s founded article is titled “U.S debt is now equal to economy,” where it is discussed how our national debt is almost exactly equal to how much our nation produces in a year.
This article relates to this week’s “Public Agenda’s Federal Budget” because “Public Agenda’s Federal Budget” explains the types of debt our country is in with estimated amounts of money, while “U.S. debt is now equal to economy” talks about our current debt as a whole and how it is so large that it equals to our current economy. Both texts discuss the contribution to the deficit, such as creditors and government programs.“Public Agenda’s Federal Budget” discusses the ways the government gets into debt and our current deficit issue, while “U.S debt is now equal to economy” embodies those ideas into our current economy and predicts how the debt will rise.
This article is credible because it is from USA Today News. A national American daily newspaper published by the Gannett Company providing up-to-date coverage of U.S. and international news, weather, entertainment, finance, and more. Although it is believed by a lot that it is not reliable, it provides accurate evidence in this article that proves correct by other reliable soures. The author, Richard Wolf, is also known to cover stories for the White House, as well as economic and domestic policy for USA TODAY.
Richard Wolf, uses statistical evidence to enrich his claims, as well as expert testimony. He includes that "[the] amount of money the federal government owes... now tops [$15.5] trillion," which is an accurate sum of our debt overall. The $4.7 trillion is also mentioned of "intergovernmental debt," by economists such as William Gale from the Brookings Institution, also stated in "Public Agenda's Federal Budget." Input from Bipartisan Policy Center's Steve Bell is included, where he informs that our entire debt is as big as everything we're producing in our country.
Both of the texts agree of our problems as a nation and our economy, and the situations the government gets involved in that hurts our economy and drowns us more into debt. As America goes more into debt and runs a deficit, the government borrows to cover the difference, and a lot is being borrowed, which furthers the debt of our nation. My article goes on to state our current debt, the close amount of debt to our economy, and what our economy will be by the end of this year based on private projections, which will be $15.3 trillion, lower than our debt. In a "Public Agenda's Federal Budget," three approaches are suggested to reduce the amount of debt and slowly return to a sustainable economy, to prevent the surpassing of debt to our economy as my article declares.
A text related to this week’s topic on the deficit was the 2012 summary report from the Social Security and Medicare board of trustees. This report specifically talks about the past spending and actions concerning both Medicare and Social Security that are part of 36% of government spending the largest. However also have has the worst deficits in our current government that is affected by many current factors including the baby boom generation and unemployment.
ReplyDeleteThis article is related to deficit topic and the text “The Federal Budget” Because the text talks about government spending and how much of it is throws Social Security and Medicare. For instances the Report states “Social Security and Medicare are the two largest federal program” The article on the federal budget agrees when it states “the federal government spends two-thirds national debt” Both texted include the main government programs and support the fact that most of government spending is on healthcare related programs that are being missed used which is one of the leading factors of the country’s debt.
The Summary report of 2012 from the Social Security and Medicare board of trustees is a valid source because it was published on an official federal government website. That would only be published if looked over by government officials. I would also jeopardize the site's credibility and government reports made available to the public if publish untrue information.
To prove its point the trustees used statistical data by stating that as of 2011 the cost of Medicare has grown around 3.0% and it will keep going up to a 5.7 % of the GDP by 2035. The GDP is that amount gross domestic product which is that amount of money each individual makes a year. Then have to pay taxes on a percentage of their amount individuals income. Which is due to the great population increase over the last few decades, because if there's more people then there a higher need for money to insure these individual that leads to higher taxes. That will lead to government eventually have to resort to higher the taxes to solve these problems and create more money. That the author of “The Federal Budget” would agree with because it gives this as a solution to the debt problem to “raise taxes”. To bring money in for the country to solve its debt problems, instead of having to borrow money from other countries to further provide services for the people of its own country.
Both the text use strong factual evidence to give reader a real idea of the nations economical standpoint. The Summary Report states that much of the countries spending on Medicare and Social Security is being missed used. “The Federal Budget” states how government has used the Medicare and Social Security “trust funds” which were meant to be persevered until the next few decades. That shows how government is miss managing the two most expensive programs it provides. Overall both texts help each other to further idea that government is misusing federal money that makes the deficit lager and weaken the nations economical status of the country.
Please disregard my first post
The article I found this week is called “Obama Outlines Deficit-Reduction Plan: ‘This Is Not Class Warfare.’” This article gives a general explanation of how Obama plans to reduce the deficit in a way that will best benefit the majority of the people.
ReplyDeleteThis week’s reading, Public Agenda’s “Federal Budget,” is about how the government is currently in a huge debt and that the deficit each year is growing continuously. According to the reading, the main cause of this deficit is because the government is spending more money, mostly on social services, than it has to offer. The reading also provides readers three possible approaches that can be taken in order to reduce the deficit and get this country out of debt. The article I found relates to this reading because it is a summarization of Obama’s approach to solving the same issue. In this article, Obama states, “‘We can’t just cut our way out of this hole. It’s going to take a balanced approach.’” In other words, the president is offering a sort of “give and take” approach in which sacrifices will have to be made now so that we can benefit later.
This article comes from the ABC News website, which is a credible news organization that has been in business since the 1940’s. ABC publishes news worldwide through television programming, radio broadcasts, and online articles. The fact that ABC is broadcasted worldwide proves its credibility because such a huge company would be careful not to post invalid information, otherwise they would be wronging the whole world.
The author of this article does indeed provide strong evidence by quoting some of the candidates like Paul Ryan and even the president himself. As part of his plan, Obama wants to raise taxes for people with high incomes. Republicans like Paul Ryan strongly disagree with this idea because they are those people with high incomes and they don’t want to pay more taxes. Ryan claims that this is “class warfare” because the responsibility is not being distributed equally; The wealthy are made to pay more than others. However, Obama argues that “‘Middle-class families shouldn’t pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires...This is not class warfare, it’s math. The money has to come from somewhere.’” Quotes directly from the candidates help the author to further explain Obama’s deficit reduction plan in the most accurate way because they are the ideas and opinions of Obama himself and his opponents who argue against him.
Obama’s approach, as described in the article, is not 100% like one of the three approaches listed in the Public Agenda’s “Federal Budget,” but rather a combination of more than one of the approaches. For example, approach #1 in “Federal Budget” consists of cutting at least some of the Bush tax cuts, which is one of the ideas that Obama presents in his plan. Obama’s “reform plan will have to raise revenue to help close the deficit.” However, Obama’s plan does not fully agree with all aspects of approach number one. Particularly, it does not agree with the part about making long term investments. Nowhere in the article does the author mention that Obama wants to make long term investments in things like infrastructure. His focus is more on taxes and making cuts. Approach number three is also similar to Obama’s plan because it includes making budget cuts for the government. In “Federal Budget,” making cuts in the budget will result in “a leaner budget to work with” (7). This agrees with the other half of Obama’s plan because it will allow the government to have more money in it’s budget, therefore reducing the amount of money it has to borrow. However, approach three also disagrees in other ways to his plan because Obama does not want to keep taxes low, or at least not for everyone. Overall, Obama’s plan is very closely related to two of the approaches offered in the Public Agenda’s “Federal Budget.” Although some of the ideas in “Federal Budget” are the same as Obama’s ideas, there are still some that Obama would not agree with.
The text I found was a letter former presidential candidate Rick Santorum wrote to his supporters entitled, "Governor Romney". This letter contains Rick Santorum's formal endorsement of his ex-rival, Mitt Romney, and encourages his supporters to transfer their support to the Romney campaign so that they can remove President Obama from office. This text connects to this week's reading, the first chapter of The Dictator's Handbook, because it exemplifies how Santorum joins Romney's winning coalition in order to obtain personal gain in exchange of his loyalty and support. Romney needs Santorum's support because Santorum's supporters become his supporters through property of association. This means that Santorum's supporters are his winning coalition and their leader, Santorum, is also a member of Romney's winning coalition. Winning coalitions only support a leader if that leader has the means to provide the coalition with their desires. Romney's winning coalition must show their loyalty to Romney by manipulating the public in a way that will ultimately sway the elections in November in his favor. If elected Romney is indebted to his winning coalition and must stay true to their policies and demands if he wishes to run for a second term.
ReplyDeleteThis source is credible because it is from Santorum's official website and Santorum will not jeopardize his reputation as a respected politician and former senator of Pennsylvania by posting information on his website that is not credible. He also placed his official signature on this letter as a sign that he is responsible for all of the claims he makes about himself and Romney. Although this letter is heavily biased because it's from Santorum himself, for the purposes of my argument, this source is credible because I am trying to highlight Santorum's ambitions and strategic political moves.
In his letter, Santorum emphasizes the amount of power he has to contribute to Romney's campaign when he states, "Clearly without the overwhelming support from you all, I never would have won 11 states and over 3 million votes"(1). Santorum might have lost to Romney, but he has a lot of supporters that he can offer to Romney in exchange for Obama's defeat and a republican run government that will best fit his views and desires. Therefore, Santorum presents strong evidence that he deserves to be in Romney's winning coalition because of the criteria that makes him a great candidate for the position. The Dictator's Handbook, also states that members of the winning coalition will attempt to overthrow their leader if this leader fails to make good on his promises to them. So Santorum is setting himself up in a position to gain leverage over Romney in the future by endorsing him.
The Dictator's Handbook and Santorum's letter, "Governor Romney", work well together to explain why Santorum wants to endorse Romney. The Dictator's Handbook categorizes individuals by their abilities to contribute to the government, and "Governor Romney" transfers these ideas to America's democratic government so that Santorum can communicate to his supporters that by supporting Romney they will exchange their loyalty to have their needs met, and in doing so will subsequently be supporting Santorum. Through this political manipulation Romney obtains crucial support to gain the presidency, Santorum gains power over Romney's decisions if he is elected president, and Santorum's supporters might have their needs met if Romney and Santorum don't agree that government revenue should be spent of the American public instead of on the winning coalition. However, this scenario is unlikely the winning coalition always takes priority over the nominal and real selectorates.
This week was based on the deficit that the United States is currently facing and how the government needs to learn how to budget its money for the benefit of the nation and its people. The article that I found was called “Passing the DREAM Act for Our Economy” by Ann Garcia and it relates to this week’s reading called Public Agenda’s Federal Budget which focused on how government should spend its money. Garcia argues that passing the DREAM Act will be beneficial not only to undocumented immigrants but to the nation that will leave a deficit since it will have billions of dollars to survive economically. By passing the DREAM Act, the government will prove that they are moral in financing and helping undocumented immigrants who view America as their home.
ReplyDeleteThe text I found this week relates to the federal budget because the DREAM Act is a law that has to be approved by Congress and if approved will affect new changes in the United States. According to Ann Garcia, “passage of the DREAM Act would add a total of $329 billion to the economy by 2030, support the creation of 1.4 jobs, and generate at least 10.2 billion in revenue for the federal government. Based on this statement, the DREAM Act will be helpful because it will provide jobs to undocumented individuals including those in factories and fields. The DREAM Act also affects job owners because this creates more profit for them rather than the amount they have gained in the previous years. Furthermore, the text I found this week relates to the federal budget because the budget covers educational cost. In the article, Ann Garcia writes that the DREAM Act would help undocumented immigrants who have remained loyal to America because the immigrant applicants will complete high school, some college, or military service which will allow for them to have better paying jobs. With this, undocumented immigrants will be active members in society. However, the only problem with the DREAM Act is that the United States will become overpopulated and the money that is produced will be gone if too much people are being provided services. Therefore, the DREAM Act suggests that reliance on federal budget is highly needed in order to succeed and stay away from future deficits.
The article “Passing the DREAM Act for Our Economy” is credible for several reasons. First of all, this article was written by Ann Garcia, a Research and Policy Associate for the Immigration Policy team at the Center for American Progress. This liberal organization offers news to people to keep them educated about politics and other issues. Consequently, this article is credible because Ann Garcia represents the liberal perspective on undocumented immigrants and how the DREAM Act is important because people need to stop living led abiding lives. On the other hand, the article I chose is credible because when checking factcheck.org, Obama did not enact the DREAM Act but however he allowed undocumented immigrants brought as children to the United States to apply for two-year work permits.
Continuation
ReplyDeleteAnn Garcia presents readers with strong evidence to demonstrate that the DREAM Act causes inspiration for others and also changes the way others view the government of this country. Ann Garcia writes that by passing the DREAM Act the youth will be able to fulfill their dreams to their full capacity. This is important because DREAMers demonstrate that they are more driven to succeed especially since they aren’t born with all the benefits that a citizen has. Garcia continues by writing that states will benefit from the DREAM Act due to economic activity. For example, Maryland would gain $4.8 billion to support the creation of more than 19,000 jobs, a reasonable amount to suit undocumented people and others who are unemployed. Garcia finishes by stating that states that are more towards the republican side will gain more in tax revenue. The people that would benefit the most are those that pay more money when doing their taxes and the DREAM Act proves that it is the best law proposed by people over the years.
Both of the texts would agree that our economy and the decisions taken by the government have not been clever. However, this could all change if the Dream Act is passed because America will be able to manage itself in getting out of the deficit. As a nation, we need to get out of debt and stop borrowing money that covers the difference of several needs such as those of health, education, and other social services. For example, right now President Barack Obama keeps on borrowing money from China but that needs to be stopped or America will be in a worse economic situation than Europe is in right now. A financial crisis is not wanted and should be avoided. Undoubtedly, both of the texts further the idea that government is misusing its money and acting immorally but by letting others into the United States we can become stronger. This is the land of the free and all who come deserve a chance to feel that way.
The source I found this week is an article in the Washington Post “Obama and Romney on the issues: Education”. The article talks about how the candidates feel about different issues in education such has; Vouchers, No Child Left Behind and Higher Education. The higher education section of article details the plan of president Obama which by taking away subsides given to the banks who give government issued loans to college students. In the Public Agenda’s Federal Budget the first approach offers the solution of “Simplifying our tax system, eliminating tax breaks and tax expenditures that cost the government money and let upper-income people and corporations off the hook.”(5) This is related to Obama’s plan in the article since he proposes to eliminate subsides, a tax break, and it will also lessen the deficit by reducing federal spending will reduce federal education funding by “61$ billion over 10 years”.
ReplyDeleteMy text is credible since it comes from the Washington Post, a daily newspaper that does fact checks on its article and other issues such as the presidential debates. It has also won 47 Pulitzer Prizes in journalism. It is also regarded as one of the leading daily American newspaper with a focus to politics. The article also contains information that Romney wrote on a position paper written in May when it mentions his position on keeping Pell Grants to those who need it the most
In the article it talks about Obama’s deeds on education, by creating the Race to the Top, where the states compete to the best educator and receive grant money. His proposed 5 billion dollar stimulus would not affect the deficit at all if his plan of eliminating subsides for companies that give out student loans. This connects to the Public Agenda reading because approach one talks about “improving education” (5) as a long term plan in order to relieve the deficit.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/obama-and-romney-on-the-issues-education/2012/10/05/2e0554ce-0f1b-11e2-bd1a-b868e65d57eb_story_2.html
Since the 2008 stock market crash, the U.S has been struggling with its debt. Because of this debt, a deficit has occurred. The government spends more than it receives. Government has tried to borrow money to recover the economy, but because they spend their budget money on federal programs, recovery seems almost impossible. According to Public Agendas “Federal Budget”, government spends 2/3 of their funds on social security, defense, Medicare, Medicaid and interest on national debt. These programs benefit individuals in making sure they are protected, but in no way does it benefit the debt of the country. Social security alone takes up 20.3% of the budget; this makes it the highest ranked out of all five programs.
ReplyDeleteHard times have called for drastic measures in government because the crash has served as an incentive for change. In order to improve the nation’s debt, Public Agendas “Federal Budget” suggests several methods. Some of these methods include making long term investments and raising revenue to cover the cost and focusing on social security and Medicare. The methods mentioned have many pros and cons and are very helpful, but controversial. Other tactics might be helpful as well. Although many conservatives might not agree with this method, an increase in immigration could help better the debt and reduce the deficit.
In “How Has Immigration Affected the U.S Economy?”, the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta targets the impact of immigration and speaks about the benefits it has on the economy. This article can be found in the website pertaining to them. The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta is responsible for the sixth district and its website releases information regarding issues that face the nation. The website provides information on research and the economy, banking, news and events and many more. In the article, readers can see that there are multiple uses of sources of data (statistics), quotations and examples which build to the credibility of their argument.
One of the people quoted in this article is Madeline Zavodny, and economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. Based on National Research Council Study, Zavodny concludes that “most immigrants who arrive in the United States before age 25 become net tax payers… immigration actually provides a net fiscal benefit to the United States of approximately $10 billion annually.” This allows for government to receive a higher increase of taxes which should decrease the debt. Adding on to this idea, the Federal Reserve Bank writes that “firms that use low-skill labor…. Absorb the increase in labor supply.” This is because they find this resourceful for their business. Jobs instantly become available to immigrants due to this. However, the jobs available to them are jobs Americans don’t particularly want to do so, it doesn’t take away work from the average American. Another positive factor is seen from this. The more those individuals have jobs, the more they are able to buy consumer products. The supply and demand of the nation will increase and after some time, as the demand for goods begin to rise and the economy starts to smooth out, the debt will lower; making it easier for government to eliminate the deficit.
Both articles look for ways in which the economy is impacted and how it can be improved. Immigration relates to the deficit of the country because it IS one of the major contributing factors that affect it. We are at a point in time where if government doesn’t act now to fix the debt of the nation, we might never be able to fix it. Some action has to take place for the greater welfare of the country. This means that if immigration has to be welcomed with opened arms, then it should. Ignoring the issue will not make it better. We must look at the fact that 2/3 of federal spending goes to five main components and one of them being interest. Immigration might be what rescues this economy from its continuous crash.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletewww.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-24/romney-and-obama-can-agree-on-taxes-why-can-t-congress-.html
ReplyDeleteThe article “Romney and Obama Can Agree on Taxes. Why Can’t Congress?” from Bloomberg L.P., explains it is clear that both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have plans on fixing the deficit, but it is also clear to see that both plans can actually result in more negative impacts rather than positive ones. The Bloomberg L.P. is a credible source because it is widely known as an international media corporation. Many individuals are dependent on this corporation because of its accuracy and efficiency in delivering business and financial news worldwide through analytic information and different insights.
This article relates to the Public Agenda’s A Citizens’ Solutions Guide: The Federal Guide because both articles talk about how taxes should be handled in order to resolve the deficit. In The Federal Guide, the Public Agenda mentions that the United States’ federal government has been in a deficit for 36 years out of the past 40 years, going over $15.5 trillion dollars. On the same topic of the United States being in debt, the Bloomberg L.P.’s article predicts that over the next decade, the debt will end up increasing by about $11 million.
Within Romney’s plan, the individuals who are being affected are all the taxpayers in the United States. Romney aims to have everyone pay their own individual tax by choosing from a range of $17,000, $25,000 or $50,000. By having everyone pay their taxes, the Tax Policy Center (a nonpartisan research institute) predicts that “Romney’s plan would increase revenue by $1.7 trillion, $1.3 trillion and $760 billion, respectively, over 10 years”. In Obama’s plan, the individuals who are being affected are wealthy taxpayers. Obama aims to reduce the amount of deductions placed on the wealthiest taxpayers that have allowed them to save more money from paying their taxes. These changes would cause wealthy taxpayers to spend more money on taxes because of the fact that their tax bills are being reduced by “$2,800 rather than the $3,960 that would otherwise be allowed”. The Tax Center Policy predicts that “[Obama’s] plan would increase revenue by $288 billion over the next decade”. When it comes to both Obama and Romney, it is clear that both plans are effective in addressing the government’s deficit problem by increasing revenue over the years. However, there are still some disadvantages from both plans that can also end up affecting our economy. Romney’s plan would not end up allowing federal revenue to increase mainly because he has plans to use the money from his taxation in order to pay for “a 20...percent cut in tax rates”. In Obama’s case, he is mainly focused on having only the wealthiest taxpayers pay higher taxes instead of individuals who make less than $200,000. This affects how much revenue the country ends up making since it would take longer to gain more money over the years.
If the Bloomberg L.P. read the Public Agenda’s Federal Budget Guide, they would agree with having the nation make adjustments in order to resolve the deficit. Such adjustments is mentioned in the first approach of the Federal Budget Guide where it states that the U.S. should “Focus federal spending on the long-term needs of our economy...and raise revenue to cover what we spend” (5), since it would allow the country to create good economic conditions that would help in providing a safety net for the economy. If the Public Agenda was to read the Bloomberg L.P.’s article, they would also agree with what was being discussed when it comes to the differences between each candidate’s tax plans. Both articles show how specific scenarios can affect the economy negatively rather than positively. The Public Agenda emphasizes the ideas within Bloomberg L.P.’s article. The Bloomberg L.P. explains how these ideas can affect America in the future by acknowledging the flaws in each candidate’s plan.
http://chronicle.com/article/US-Opens-a-Door-to-a-Dream/133649/
ReplyDeleteThe article " U.S. Opens a Door to a Dream for Young Illegal Immigrants" by Julia Love focuses on President Obama's new policy. With President Obama's new policy young people who were brought to the United States illegally as children, can apply for a two year deportation in order to motivate others to pursue their education. Additionally, it will also motivate those who are in school to put their degrees to use. This article was published on the News section of the new source The Chronicle of Higher Education.
This article connects to Public Agenda's Federal Budget because this article speaks about the actions being made by Obama's new policy and how it can not only be beneficial to the immigrants but also to the United States. This relates to Public Agenda's The Federal Budget and how it contributes to the national debt, how the debt will impact the future and how it can relate to other things such as immigration and health care. This text demonstrates how much Federal money is spent on different things. For example, 2/3 of the Federal money is spent on social security, defense, Medicare, Medicaid and interest on national debt. The issue of immigration contributes and leads to changes in the federal budget where illegal immigrants play a role in the federal budget.
The evidence that demonstrates this text is credible is that it is an article from The Chronicle of Higher Education which is the No. 1 source of news, information, and jobs for college and university faculty members and administrators. Furthermore, The Chronicle's Web-site has more than 12.8 million pages a month, seen by more than 1.9 million unique visitors. Therefore, that confirms that this is a relevant and reliable new source from which one can get accurate information. Additionally, The Chronicle's will not publish irrelevant information because it will lose it's viewers and opportunities of getting involved with partnerships.
Julia Love, the author of this article uses strong evidence to support her argument because she uses experts from different universities to provide information about the issue and their point of view on the topic. For example, Mr. Gonzales from University of Chicago says "some undocumented young people and their families, who often remain in the country by avoiding government officials, may be reluctant to come forward". This is something Mr. Gonzales noted from being a part of an advocacy group. Also Love includes " The policy also stands to benefit an estimated 350,000 people who lack a high-school diploma or a GED but could qualify if they have enrolled in a program by the time they file their applications, according to the Migration Policy Institute". Love includes this fact to show an estimated number so that readers can see the big picture and lets readers see through real numbers the effect it has on the population of immigrants.
The issue with immigration is related to everything, specifically the Federal Budget. In the Public Agenda's The Federal Budget, the author writes that it would be a beneficial approach "if the taxes are kept as low as possible but reduce the size of the government by making major cuts in higher education". This expands to the idea of young illegal immigrants being able to have the opportunity to have a chance of having higher education. Although immigrants have both positive and negative affects in the United States, the Federal Budget helps the immigrant population in a positive way.
The article “Romney’s Immigration Exaggeration” by Eugene Kiely is one that speaks about how Governor Romney exaggerated when saying that Obama did absolutely nothing to reform immigration. He also stated that if he would have been president at the time he would have came up with a long term solution in response to the issue of immigration. In this article it is also made clear that Obama supported the DREAM Act which would give citizenship to some illegal immigrants who were brought to the United States as young children, this act was not passed because of Republican opposition in the Senate.
ReplyDeleteThis article connects to this weeks topic because in A CItizens Solutions Guide The Federal Budget, the first possible approach to dealing with the deficit is focusing more on long-term needs of the economy, that include bettering science and math education, and raising revenue to cover the amount of money the government spends. In “Romney’s Immigration Exaggeration” Kiely includes, “Obama supported and lobbied for the DREAM Act, which would have created a path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children.” The Dream Act is beneficial to the economy because according to the Center for American Progress the Dream Act would add $329 billion to the U.S. economy and create more than a million new jobs by 2030. This money could be used in the “pay-as-you-go” suggestion mentioned in approach one because it could serve as one of the offsets that would cover new expenses to a bill that would spend money.
Factcheck.org is reliable because it is a nonpartisan source meaning that it is not bias towards one specific party. This article includes excerpts from the debate that took place on October 23, 2012 that was moderated by Bob Schieffer regarding foreign policy. Kiely includes statements made by the director of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, this makes the source reliable because this person has a head position in a United States agency. Additionally this article includes hyperlinks which direct users to other sources such as CBS which is a major US commercial broadcasting television network and http://www.dhs.gov, which is an official government website for the Department of Homeland Security.
Kiely presents strong evidence to support his argument that Romney is exaggerating when claiming that Obama did absolutely nothing to reform immigration. Kiely states,”In the Senate, a cloture motion to end debate received 55 votes — a clear majority and enough to assure passage had the bill been allowed to come to a straight up-or-down vote. But the measure failed because it takes 60 votes for such a motion to pass.” With this piece it is evident that President Obama did intend to pass the DREAM Act which would be an action towards immigration reformation since a large portion of people who are undocumented would be granted citizenship in order to continue studies in the United States.
The DREAM Act was suppose to be action that would contribute to the nation’s economy. In A CItizens Solutions Guide The Federal Budget the author writes about how an action that would help lessen the deficit is making long-term investments and raising revenue in order to cover the costs. Similarly to this approach Romney, Kiley writes,” When asked by host Bob Schieffer if he would repeal the new policy, Romney criticized the president for not seeking a long-term solution for those covered by the policy...” Although the deficit and immigration are two distinct controversies that affect different groups of individuals they may both be approached similarly by having solutions that will be characterized as long-term ones.
Karla Arroyo
ReplyDeleteHonors Civics
Mr. Rochowicz
10/25/12
The text I adapted is from The New York Times and it is called “Immigration and American Jobs” by Eduardo Porter. This text is about immigrants, mainly Latin American and how are they affecting the economy. In addition, the immigrant Latin Americans that are being spoken about are said to have been competing with American workers for jobs.
This text connects to this week’s topic- the deficit because it is about how immigrants are impacting the economy. In the the text, Porter states, “This understanding of immigration helped propel a vast increase in the Border Patrol’s budget over the last two decades to stop immigrants on their way in” (1). Illegal immigration has slowed partly because there are fewer employment opportunities for them here, and partly due to increased border patrols. In turn, if the deficit is reduced, the economy can be stabilized and new business growth will create more jobs.
The evidence I have found that this text is credible is that this text is from The New York Times, which is a well-renowned newspaper organization. In addition, this text is credible because it describes the pros and cons of immigrants having jobs, which makes it a nonpartisan text- it is not biased. This text is also credible because Porter fact-checks President Barack Obama when he states, “President Obama, who in 2008 said he would push for a law that would grant many of these immigrants legal access to jobs in the United States, instead deported a record number of immigrants working here illegally” (1). Porter uses this to conclude the nationwide issue of immigrant employment and how it has currently affected our nation.
Porter uses strong evidence to support his argument various times in the text. He states, “Giovanni Peri, an economist at the University of California at Davis, estimated that the wave of immigrants that entered the United States from 1990 to 2007 increased national income per worker by about $5,400 a year on average...” (1). Here, Porter uses statistical information to strengthen his argument and to determine the change over the years. In addition, he supports his argument with this excerpt because it shows that immigrants have affected the economy in a positive way.
Immigration is currently affecting the nation’s economy- in both positive and negative ways. The immigration rate in America is responsible for bettering the economy because immigrants that travel to America do it in search of employment opportunities. On the other hand, the immigration rate in America can also worsen the economy and contribute to the deficit because some argue that immigrants are the reason why American workers are losing jobs. In addition, immigrants are responsible for driving down the wages of blue collar workers. Porter’s New York Times article makes this clear when he states, “Immigrants can displace domestic workers - before business investment starts rising and creating new jobs.” In “Public Agenda’s Federal Budget”, there is a similarity when the reducement of debt comes about, and when the text states that the United States should slowly return to a “sustainable federal budget”. As stated, “The good news is most economists and budget analysts argue that there is a wide range of practical solutions to the government's budget problems” (1), there can be a solution to reducing the deficit, whether it is with or without immigrants.
The link to my source is: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/immigration-and-american-jobs/
Glen Johnson’s "Deficit, green jobs divide an Iowa town" is about the reaction of a town in Iowa on the debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney over "green jobs," specifically concerning wind-energy. This article is relevant to both Public Agenda's “The Federal Budget” and The Dictator's Handbook by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith because this article includes information on how each candidate intends to reduce the national debt and the deficit, which is included in The Federal Budget. The article is related to The Dictator's Handbook because it suggests apparent three-dimensional forms of government: interchangeables, influentials and essentials, which both Obama and Romney heavily rely upon in Iowa. This source is credible because it was published by The Boston Globe. The Boston Globe is a daily newspaper published in Boston, Massachusetts and owned by a world renowned newspaper company, The New York Times. Since the Boston Globe is owned by such a widely known company, it is unlikely this newspaper would release false information to avoid damaging its reputation and losing readers. Additionally, The Boston Globe has won about 21 Pulitzer Prizes, suggesting it is widely-acknowledged nationally and trusted by its readers.
ReplyDeleteIn his article, Glen Johnson uses statistical evidence to suggest that perhaps adding to the national debt may harm the state of Iowa. For example, Johnson writes, “Iowa has the nation’s lowest per-capita credit card debt in the country, and that financial prudence affects many opinions about the burgeoning budget deficit and national debt… Today, Democrat Christie Vilsack… is campaigning for Congress by blaming incumbent Representative Steve King, a Republican, for voting to add to the nation’s debt. ‘The national debt was $6 trillion when Congressman King took office. It’s $16 trillion now.’” Clearly, Johnson is adding the calculations of national debt to not only add to the severity of the debt, but to truly provide actual information concerning the well-being of state. He not only suggests that the state’s current successful condition will be tainted but subtly expresses his political standing when it comes to the debt and deficit.
"Deficit, green jobs divide an Iowa town" and chapter one of The Dictator's Handbook both present how those who are hoping to become rulers of the nation cannot rule alone; potential leaders require supporters to remain in power. In Johnson’s article, he states, “Its [Iowa’s] six Electoral College votes are key to each candidate’s plan to reach the 270 required to win. For Obama in particular, winning Iowa and Wisconsin, as well as Colorado…would allow him to retain the presidency even if he lost all of the big-ticket states like Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Virginia.” As stated in The Dictator’s Handbook, government is made up of three categories, interchangeables (potential support for the leaders), influentials (support that truly influences elections) and essentials (support that is the sustenance and foundation of the leader). According to the book, “In the United States, the nominal selectorate [interchangeables] and real selectorate [influentials] are therefore pretty closely aligned” (6). Basically, if either Romney or Obama wish to win the election, they have to meet the demands of the nominal selectorate since that specific group of people are those who truly determine the direction the nation will move in and who will become leader. In Obama’s case, he is favoring “extending the tax credit past its Dec. 31 expiration, and visited Newton in May to lobby Congress for it.” In other words, Obama is looking for ways to appeal to voters in Iowa by expanding the nation’s fiscal policy and allowing voters to gain more from their taxes. Obama is a prominent example of how “managing the interchangeables, influentials and essentials… is the act, art, and science of governing” (11).
http://www.vdare.com/articles/immigrants-causing-one-fifth-of-federal-deficit
ReplyDeleteThe federal deficit has risen greatly and it’s still rising. A major reason why it has increased so drastically is because of the increase of immigration. The article, “Immigrants Causing One Fifth Of Federal Deficit” by Edwin Rubenstein discusses how the growth of the immigration population has added onto the federal deficit. The Public Agenda's Federal Budget mentions a key point which is that, “the federal government spends two-thirds of its money on just five things: Social Security, defense, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the national debt. Everything else in the federal government does…only takes up a third of the budget” (3). Edwin Rubenstein mentions immigrants are one of the group that deeply relies on programs like Social Security, yet they don’t pay any taxes which destroys the balance ad creates more deficit.
The article comes from VDARE.com which is a website that advocates reduced immigration into the United States. Since VDARE is an organization, they would not publish false information because they would want to keep up a good reputation so that people will listen to what they have to say and believe it. Also, Edwin Rubenstein is the President of ESR Research Economic Consultants which makes the source much more credible since being the President of an organization also implies that you must have a good reputation. If VDARE or Edwin Rubenstein were to publish false information, both of their reputations would be tarnished and they wouldn’t risk that.
Edwin Rubenstein uses statistics to back up his argument. For example, he states that “The [National Research Council (NRC)] found that the average immigrant household received $3,700 more in federal benefits than they paid in federal taxes—i.e., they generated a deficit of $3,700 per year.” Rubenstein also used information from the Census Bureau which is a government agency that collects information on such things as demographics, making them an unbiased source.
Both the Public Agenda and Edwin Rubenstein would agree that something must be done to decrease the federal deficit so that the country’s economy won’t suffer the consequences in the future. A majority of immigrants come to America illegally so they end up not paying taxes yet they rely heavily on programs like Social Security and Medicare. The government has to spend more money as a result but less money is coming into the government, which only creates more deficit. Rubenstein states that, “the deficit is now about $17,000 per immigrant household. There are about 13 million such households in the U.S. Well, when you do the math…you get a federal “immigration deficit” of $220 billion… [Which] equals about 17% of the entire federal deficit.” Immigrants are replacing Americans who work and pay their taxes which is why there is less money going into the government. The Public Agenda provides one of the approaches to the deficit which includes raising taxes but, “Raising taxes to over federal spending will just give government more of our hard-earned dollars to spend wastefully” (7). Raising taxes won’t help decrease the deficit-especially since it’ll only put more of a strain on Americans while immigrants are able to live off of those same taxes without paying their own. Rubenstein would agree that raising taxes aren’t the solution since immigrants make up a large fraction of the American population yet they do not contribute to the government which is why he states that a long-term moratorium must be done because it will, “reduce [the] population by 103 million below the level that we would have had under current immigration policy… the population impact alone will reduce the 2050 deficit by about 30% below the level that we would have under current immigration policy.” The key to lowering the deficit isn’t cutting down on beneficial programs like Social Security or raising taxes but stopping the increase of the population since less people means less money that needs to be spent.
In the article “CBO: Obamacare Will Spend More, Tax More, and Reduce the Deficit Less Than We Previously Thought” by Avik Roy it talks about how Obamacare is predicted to rasie spending, raise taxes and reduce the deficit less than previously thought in 2010. Which connects to this week’s topic of the deficit because it gives stats on how this healthcare plan is predicted to affect the deficit. It also connects to the reading “A Citizens’ solutions Guide The Federal Budget” by public agenda because the article talks about the deficit, what it is made up of, and what can be done to fix it. In the article it talks about healthcare and how it plays a huge roll in the deficit and the national debt.
ReplyDeleteThis text is credible because it’s from Forbes a well-known American business magazine, which has articles on topics such as finance, industry, investing, and marketing topics. It is also reliable because it was written by was also published by Avik Roy, a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. However this proves that the article has bias because Avik Roy is part of Mitt Romney’s Health Care Policy Advisory Group. The final evidence that it is reliable is that in the article it relates to credible sources such as the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
The Author references the CBO to show how Obama will raise spending, raise taxes, and reduces the deficit less than it was predicted in 2010. It shows states from stats from 2010, 2011 and 2012 to show these three aspects. For all there it shows for the next seven years and the next 10 years from the year the year the data was taken. For spending it states, “In 2010, the CBO estimated that Obamacare’s spending on new programs would amount to $929 billion from 2013-2019, and a ten-year cost of $944 billion. Those figures increased to $956 billion and $1,442 billion respectively in 2011, and $1,053 billion and $1,856 billion in 2012”. Which proves that spending is predicted to be higher than expected. For taxes it states “In 2010, the CBO estimated that Obamacare’s tax increases would amount to $626 billion from 2013-2019, and $631 billion over ten years. In 2011, the CBO estimated totals of $624 and $968 billion, respectively. In the most recent report, the CBO projected a 2013-2019 total of $672 billion, and a ten-year total of $1,221 billion”. Which shows that the predictions for the amount of taxes under Obamacare also increased. For the reduction of the deficit it states “In 2010, the CBO projected that Obamacare would reduce the deficit by $140 billion from 2013 to 2019. That has dropped to a measly $4 billion in its most recent report. The ten-year totals have gone from $143 billion in 2010 to $210 billion in 2011 and $109 billion in 2012”. This Obamacare will help less with the deficit than previously expected in 2010.
Both Public Agenda and Avik Roy know how healthcare can play huge roll in the deficit and the national debt. Public agenda states how Medicare and Medicaid are two of the things the federal government spends two-thirds of its money. It also states how Medicare and Medicaid are becoming more costly and have raised healthcare. Which relates to when Avik Roy states how Obamacare will make cuts to Medicare. It also states how the amount estimated of those cuts has increased since 2010. In 2010 the law would cut $443 billion but in 2011 was predicted to be $682 billion and in 2012 it was $743 billion. A greater cut on Medicare would mean less of an impact on the deficit but less healthcare for people who need it. This shows how Obamacare can play a big role on the deficit.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/07/27/cbo-obamacare-will-spend-more-tax-more-and-reduce-the-deficit-less-than-we-previously-thought/
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the article “Romney Wrong on Deficits, Auto Bailout”, author Eugene Kiely corrects Romney’s remarks towards President Obama thus far. Romney tries to use statistical data out of context, in order to trick individuals into leaning towards him and not the current president. However, with fact check we see that President Obama was indeed saying the truth and Romney wanted to make President Obama look like the bad guy.
ReplyDeleteThis article connects to this week’s text “ Public Agenda's Federal Budget” because both articles discuss one of the most important issues our country faces today - debt. In Public Agenda’s Federal Budget, the author combines different programs within the debt and their possible outcome. For example, the Medicare and Medicaid and the retirement age. It has implied that if not correct action is taken, we may suffer the consequences. Our children would suffer more though. Children born in 2007 will not even be guaranteed to live past their sixties.In “Romney Wrongs on Deficits, Auto Bailout” the author gives both point of views but centers more on the lies that Romney says and corrects it with evidence.
The article I found is credible because it is on factcheck.org which is a non partisan organization.
A non partisan source is wonderful because it shows you both views without being lenient towards one or the other.Factcheck.org can be cited freely because it is credible and a lot of what they say is copied into other sites and vice versa. It’s a good website to rely on both views for.
The author presents really strong evidence to support his view. He speaks about the time where Romney accuses President Obama guilty for increasing our debt. However, he counts a few months before he was actually inducted. Thus, his point is invalid and so is his speech.
Both authors have opposing viewpoints that lead to the infamous issue of debt in our nation. In Public Agenda’s Federal Budget, the author goes more general and overviews everything including a couple of issues like Health Care. In “Romney Wrong on Deficits, Auto Bailout”, the author goes specific into what Romney says. In conclusion, both articles serve as foundations for deficit research and linking back to other sources.