Does everyone need to be relatively economically equal in order for democracy to work?

Although America does have its downfalls, the democratic system is working perfectly fine without everyone being economically equal. Now I’m not sure if you realize this, but the idea of everyone being economically equal is called communism. Americans have fought for many years to keep communism out of this country and their hard work should not be ruined to jeopardize the already working democratic system. Although the clash of classes causes some issues when it comes to voting for things such as taxes, making everyone economically equal is not the answer.

Communism will only result in the downfall of Americans putting forth effort into going to college and trying to get good jobs. The number of doctors, lawyers, and teachers will drastically decline because nobody will want to take the time to go to multiple years of school to have a difficult job that gets paid the same amount as a McDonald’s worker. Also, equality of the economy will cause workers to become lazy. Without the need to be promoted or get a raise, people will no longer do the best work that they can. Therefore, products would not be made as well and services would falter.

                The only issue that I can see with having multiple economic classes is the debate of taxes. Yes, this is a big issue in America and we all have our own opinions on how taxing should be distributed. But the risk of our democratic and economic welfare is not worth the argument of whether or not the rich should be taxed more. After reading the article What I Told the Hedge Fund Managers in Miami, I can say that I absolutely do not agree with James Livingston when he says, “Let’s realize that the price of liberty is equality.” This is certainly not true considering that this country has gotten along just fine on the economic system that we have now. As Glenn Reed states in Capitalistic Language& The Non-Profit World. Selling Out Word by Word?, “punishing the successful.” That is exactly what communism is, punishing the successful. If the people of this country that put forth enough effort to be successful are punished for it, what is this country coming to?

                Communism is not the answer for this country’s democratic problems. Communism will only cause the destruction of our country and its economy. America will always have its issues and there will always be different ways to solve them, but an equal economy is never the answer.

Can our Nation Afford To Give Tax Breaks?

I would hate to be the first to admit that the governmental tax breaks are bad, but are they going to do our country as a whole any good? Our national debt is so high and yet we are giving another tax break to the American people. I am in no way suggesting that we higher our taxes, but our nation needs money now more than ever.

The first thing we need to consider is how our country makes money. International trade? No, we are way to dependent on that to make any profit for ourselves. Taxes? Isn’t that the only thing that we are making money on? Although it may sound good to us and guarantee some votes for Obama for pushing it, I don’t believe that giving tax breaks to our citizens is a good thing.

The deficit for 2011 was $1.56 trillion according to National Review. This is an obscene amount of money and it will take years and years to ever get out of the economical slump we are currently in. How will giving tax breaks solve this? I know some of you are thinking, “How are taxes going to make up for the debt anyway?” I realized you point but I would also like to point out that it can’t hurt the debt either.

Many are even saying to tax the rich more money. The problem is, we already do. According to the National Review, the citizens who make one million dollars or more are paying twenty-five percent average tax rate while those citizens who make $500,000 to $100,000 pay an average of 7 or 8 percent. They are already paying more taxes so I don’t think that we should punish them more while giving a tax break to the overall.

The tax breaks for 2012 will include hundreds of dollars increase on returns filed (The Wall Street Journal). These include: the standard income tax deductions for both married and single households, personal and dependent exemptions, and estate-tax exclusion. All of the deductions will add up to thousands of dollars. Our country can’t afford such a tax break. How does Obama plan to get our national debt lower if he supports decreases the amount given to the government?

It may not seem like it, but I am not against giving a break to Americans. However, I do believe that there is a point where we all need to live with the sacrifice of helping our country out. Our nation is too far along in debt to keep giving to the American people without getting more in return. We need to get our country back to where it once was and become dependent on ourselves, instead of foreign countries. The average American may disagree and claim that this is the land of the free. However, freedom isn’t free and we need to help Uncle Sam out.

Bailout: The Government's Worst Joke Ever

            The times that we are in are hard and not looking too good for the future. As a tax payer as everyone in America is, or at least should be, I take pride and some form of happiness to see my government throw my hard earned money away as they have tried to salvage sinking companies from the briny deep. I am, of course, being very facetious to which the mood of this writing will stay as I have lost and most likely will lose more hope for the economy to bounce back to something of a presentable state that we as a country can be proud of.

            Not too long ago, in a country not too far away, company after company fell to the evil that is bankruptcy. The article, “How the Government Bailout of FailingCompanies Enslaves our Children and Grandchildren,” states that in the massive bankruptcy that happened a couple of years ago to the companies of Ameribank, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, Merryl Lynch and AIG was a colossal tragedy to the economy. These events, however, show the American people that the government has a humorous side as they responded with the worst joke ever told in America. Not only did the government include themselves but they felt like including the American people as well as the government took the peoples’ money and threw it away. It might have been funnier if they just burned all the money and sang kumbaya around the fire. The government took billions of dollars and tried to revive the dead only to increase the enormous amount of debt that America is in, but it is for the greater good so that makes it all ok. It is easy for the government to hand truckloads of other peoples’ money to these companies, it is even easier for the companies to spend it because they know that it is not theirs, so there is no negative side if  they waste it. This leads up to my next point that I am going to make.

            I feel like the people of today have become too soft. If companies like these fail, and fail hard they did, I feel like they should get the “F” they deserve. I believe no one truly learns unless they truly fail. The government playing this joke of giving the bankrupt companies billions of dollars to stay afloat will not teach them anything. For companies to take more responsibility for their actions, though this may be harsh, they need to fail without the hope of someone coming in to save them. Some would state that there are companies that are too big to let them fail, which is stated in the article “When Should the Government Bail Out PrivateCompanies?” If this happens to be the case then that company would need to be broken up or given less power because if this is ever the case then that means a monopoly is forming and if I am not mistaken that is a bad thing to let happen.

            The government bailing out companies is a huge joke, and not even a good one at that. It is like those jokes that you think is really funny on your own, but when you tell your friends they just stare at you with the dumb face. If companies are failing then they need to fail hard and then maybe, just maybe, people will learn the value of money.

Language Education

In my Spanish class in high school bilingual speakers came to our class. These speakers would describe the lives they led in their countries. They usually had learned one language in Elementary/middle School. Then, the speakers would start learning another language by the time they were in high school.

Ultimately what I learned from all of these speakers is that America is far behind other countries in teaching multiple languages. In high school, we are lucky to get study three years of another language. It is only required to take two years of the same language in high school to graduate. Even with two or three years of these classes most students are unable to really have a conversation in that language.  

As Grace Chen says most children are required in other countries to begin learning another language by age eight; in America, we begin teaching other languages by age fourteen. This huge gap in age gives other countries a “leg up” on America. The earlier you start teaching the language, the more rapidly the child will understand the concepts. These other countries also let the students study languages longer. Experts say that it takes up to six to eight years of studying the language to become truly proficient.

Not only does learning another language allow you to have a better looking resume, but it opens up a whole new world. Speaking and understanding another languages allows you to travel and appreciate other cultures. It promotes development of parts of the brain that we might not use regularly. Learning another languages also helps with critical thinking and memory. So not only will this help with understanding of the outside world, but it will improve skills used for other classes in school.

In order to be taken more seriously you should have another language in your past. It looks great on a resume, and it will help out the American economy. David Gray States that it was okay for the workers to skirt around the language issue, but now that our products are not superior to others we need to adapt, and be able to compete. We are at a disadvantage if our competitors can speak a language that allows them more business. So, if we are able to speak languages that potential consumers are of other countries we would be able to have more export.

In conclusion to improve out economy, education, and overall our learning abilities America needs to step it up. We, as Americans, need to make learning a foreign language a requirement at a younger age, or run the risk of being left behind.

Presidential Debates: How the Useful Tool Has Lost Much of It's Value

Every four years, the American public makes a decision that will, for better or worse, have worldwide repercussions throughout the subsequent four years. This decision is, of course, the presidential election. The process is one that can seem very drawn out at times, with seemingly countless different steps along the way in nominating candidates to run for a party’s position, voting for the individuals to represent each party, and then the race amongst the party representatives. One of the aspects during the election procedure that can seem to never really go away is the constant barrage of candidate debates. Recently however, these have been abused and turned into a stage upon which, both rightfully and wrongfully, candidates are being deemed serious contenders or unfit for the duty of leading a nation.

            When the presidential candidate debates were first introduced, their intention was to give the American public both a view of the candidates on a more intimate level and how they carried themselves, as well as to provide a way of getting direct answers to the tough, controversial questions that the public wanted to hear, straight from the candidate’s mouths. While this is still a part of today’s candidate debates, the media has sunk it’s teeth into the very roots of the debate and it’s purpose, and the process has started to lean more towards an entertainment session than a political situation. One article on the Daily Beast stated this idea fittingly in saying “The focus of today's primary debates emphasizes entertainment and eyeballs…. It’s all about network branding, talent promotion, and ratings, not a better democratic process.”

            The 2012 Republican Party Presidential Primary is a current example of this notion of having debates that are losing some of their meaning. The previously mentioned Daily Beast article went on to point out another flaw in the way that the media has turned these debates into a platform to showcase the most visually appealing candidate, and throw the less than camera-savvy ones under the bus. It stated that “the unemployment rate [in America had] ticked up to 9.1 percent, Europe’s financial crisis worsened, and Iran talked of testing a nuclear bomb, but the candidates for president of the United States were asked ‘Dancing With the Stars or American Idol? Spicy or mild? Elvis or Johnny Cash?’” These kinds of questions are sadly commonplace in today’s debates, and their answers are dissected, and in some cases turned around and misinterpreted, creating facades and false reputations. Mark McKinnon put it nicely in his article when he said that “…there are too many debates, and we have lost the focus on what the candidates' vision for America is... It's evolved into making mistakes... [T]hat's not what debates are supposed to be about…” Personally, I feel that these debates are a great tool if used how they were originally intended, and in the future, we as Americans need to do just that.

An Overly-simplistic and Amateur View on Politics: and a Slight Epiphany…

For some time it could be said that I exhibited a striving sensation to join the hustle and bustle that Americans give the title ‘politics’. However, my interest in obtaining political knowledge dwindles with every passing day. It makes me cringe to even think about reading a political article produced by any knowledgeable columnist.  You see, I have a condition, an unnamed and unknown condition that carries a definition to describe my fear of political hullabaloo.

I highly doubt I am the only one human with this feeling, as the political jargon in today’s age proceeds to flourish into more confusing and complicated issues. Outside my feelings of animosity and fear of politics, I still sense that I am missing out, and in all honesty, I don’t think it is right to duck and cover for the remainder of my existence and likewise for everyone else in a similar predicament.

Having a fear of politics is understandable; however, it is sad that most people, including myself, have such a devoted avoidance. I would love to have an opinion on the upcoming elections, or have the ability to fight my position regarding piracy through the internet. In fact, it may not be that I have no opinion; I am just terrified to share what I think for the fact that it might get ripped to shreds by anyone and everyone. Alyssa Rosenberg explains in her article, “TV’s Irrational Fear of Politics,” that even television shows are avoiding their acknowledgement toward any political position for the fear that they may lose fans, and coincidentally, revenue. And when it comes to having an opinion, many people choose the “default position” and remain neutral, when society naturally encourages others to share their views.

There is a similarity between the television shows and myself. I wouldn’t be one to jeopardize the loss my fans (friends) either. I don’t like the idea of putting myself in the eye of my peers, especially when I am lacking the knowledge to back up my opinions. I agree with the views of Harvey Mansfield in his article, “How to Understand Politics” where he states simply in the first paragraph that in his case he would rather avoid the practice of politics and instead explain how to understand it.

What I am trying to say throughout this post is “Hello, my name is Allie Brisco, and I have a fear of politics.” As a spin off from the average introduction by an alcoholics anonymous participant, I too need, and want, to make a change. And I encourage anyone sharing my similar feelings to do the same.

All in all, people best be ‘learnin up’ on some political happenings!

Passing the National Defense Authorization Act Deprives Citizens of Rights

The Bill of Rights, as any American is well aware, grants US citizens the right to a trial by jury. Furthermore, a citizen has the right to due process of law. These are fundamental rights to our American democracy. They guarantee that a citizen be tried in courts fairly, because being deprived of liberty or life is what is at stake. Without these rights, who is safe from false prosecution? American citizens surely are not.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was signed into law for the 2012 New Year. The bill oversees the defense of the country and, as the New York Times states, authorizes $662 million in military spending. Great. Appropriating money that the US does not have on overseas wars that many Americans don’t remember the reasons as to why we are fighting. With that aside, whether you agree with the war effort or not, every citizen should be concerned with this next tidbit.

The NDAA makes no distinction between American citizens and terrorists. It is broad enough to encompass both groups. Thus, it not only enables Americans to be tried in military courts, but it also gives the possibility of indefinite military detention without a trial, as if we are not citizens. As the DailyBeast relays, the NDAA subjects us to the will of those in power, with no protection, because it deprives us of due process of law.

We needn’t be concerned though according to the New York Times, because President Obama promises that he would never actually ever put this into effect, by authorizing "the indefinite military detention of American citizens”. I don’t know about you, but the president’s words in no way comfort me. Simply put, actions speak louder than words.

Imagine you are a school teacher who cares about education across the globe. As part of your charity work, you send boxes of books to schools overseas, specifically to the Middle East, because of your ancestral ties. You, an American citizen, are now suspect of terrorism. Should you be worried? You might say no, because you can go to Federal court and be tried according to due process. Under this procedure you would surely win your case. Unfortunately, due to the National Defense Authorization Act, the scenario I just described to you could easily not turn out in your favor.

If our government does not plan on ever using the NDAA as justification for imprisoning American citizens, then why does the act even allow for there to be that possibility? This is a prime example of how pieces of our founding legislation, like the Bill of Rights, are being negated. Where do the “limits on federal power”, as phrased by Ron Paul, come from? It seems as though American liberties are being diminished. At least we live in the "Land of the Fr...", well at least we live.