Blog Stage Eight

 In Carolina Vazquez's post, "Wealthy and Criminal Justice in the United States", she argues that sixth amendment should be ratified and have fixed prices on lawyers for every person to be represented equally and fairly, which would remove the affluent peers from having the fair trials because of the wealth they possess. And therefore, everybody would be treated with justice, equality and would be given a fair trial.

I completely agree with the argument she made. After looking at the articles she has used to support her argument, it is indeed true that rich people get away because of their money and is not some undisclosed secret and which I find very unfair. In one of the case, Vazquez’s used in her argument was astonishing, in which Gurbaksh Chahal, a millionaire who was charged with 45 felony counts but later was reduced to misdemeanors and was just condemned to 25 hours of community service. This case definitely supports her argument and proofs the point she is making very well. I would also like to discuss this case, where a Texas judge decided not to send a teenager from a rich family to prison after he killed four people while drinking and driving. This is not fair that he got off so easily because if it was for a poor person they would have to spend a lot of time in jail. This should be changed so people will not trying to find there way out of law by using money.

Overall, her argument seems very thoughtful and coherent. 

Does Congress represents us?

Apparently the Congress does not seem to accurately represent us. The socio demographics of the House of the representatives are not even close to reflecting our country's demographics. According to the demographics, there are no representations in the House other than White, African Americans, Asians, Hispanics, Pacific Islander or American Indians. This is the mainly why most citizens say in polls that they don't have much say-so. 

A study of the 113th Congress by Mel Watt shows that the members of congress make six times more than the typical American does: "Median annual earnings, the typical wages and salaries of American workers ages 16 and older, are $29,000. Median earnings for members of Congress are $174,000. All Representatives and Senators earn this amount except for the Speaker of the House, President of the Senate, and majority/minority leaders of the House and Senate. These figures include only salaries, not outside income, assets, allowances or benefits.” So I don't believe the fact when they claim to understand average Americans struggles and their pain.

I think the solution to this problem is that we should expand the House of Representatives. The more representatives in the office, the more different kind of people will be represented; since, America is a very diverse country. Diverse ethnicity and minorities other than White American, African Americans, Asians or Hispanics, would have some fair chance to gain some representation because of this change.

Some people might disagree with the idea of expanding the size of House of representative; that we will have to pay more people. However, this will be worth it and it'll eventually pay off with the positive outcomes. In Expand the House of Representatives Larry Sabato discusses the solution to this very same problem and says, “ Staff resources could be held constant, more or less, with costs divided by 1,000 instead of 435.” He includes that the governmental Operations can accommodate a small amount of the national budget. In conclusion, I think increasing the size of House of Representatives would be a great change. This change is going to take time but it will surely happen.

Blog Stage Six

I totally agree with Angela DeRiggi's post Original editorial - Child Care, where she discusses that government should provide the child care to those who are in need. Her argument is perfectly structured and very put. For instance I know someone who could not complete her education incomplete because she had the responsibilities of work and kids at the same time. My point is the same as DeRiggi's, this is hurting the economy because people are not able to go back to the word industry or complete their education because of the responsibility of the kids. The daycare is so expensive now days that people are not able to afford it. So as DeRiggi said that the government should provide the needy with child care because it will help them eventually.

How should we increase the voter turnout?

How should we try to increase the voter turn out in United States of America? Well, I believe there are so many things that could be done in order to increase the voter turnout. First of all, do we even need to increase the voter turn out or not? I think so; the voter turn out in 2012 was lower than the ones in 2008 and 2004.

The very first change I would recommend would be making the Election Day a national or federal holiday. There are a lot of people who are not able to cast a vote because of the reason that they have school, college, work or some other work-related duties. This will give students a chance to go vote without having to worry about missing their classes neither would workers would have to miss their work. Another change that would be really beneficial is education, specifically when it's the voting time. So many people think their votes do not matter. Of course it does. We have a democracy system and this is all about choosing whom you think would best represent you and run the country better. There are a lot of other factors that I would recommend such as providing free snacks and drinks at that event and providing free day care on the Election Day to the voters. Last but not least provide different languages interpreters teaching them how to vote, what to do and also the education should be given in more than just English and Spanish, since America is such a diverse nation. 

I believe that by making these changes, we can absolutely have an increase in voter turn out in future. The increase in voter turn out participation is extremely needed, in order to have a government system as we desire. 

Free money for everyone

In free money for everyone, Ryan Cooper discusses a scheme to save America from hitting the depression. He said that wouldn’t it be crazy to get $2000 paid check in your mail on daily going bases. Cooper book, The General Theory of Employment

Cooper includes that in 2008, George W. Bush and Nancy Pelosi caused the tax rebate stimulus, in that everyone received a new fresh check paid for in their mail. Cooper claims that even Mill, Keynes, Friedman, and Bernanke might debate that we should do try the same stimulus again however, this time, much more and on continuing basis.

The whole article is based on the key idea, aggregate demand, which stated simply, “is the total amount of spending in the economy.” In the duration of economic downfall, aggregate demand slows down. He further explain that since the recent jobless employees have less money and people who try to save jobs decrease their spending in fear. Therefore, when people spend less amount of money, sales goes down, and companies have to lay off some employees, who then use even less money, and it goes on and on. Cooper believes that money goes through a circle: “my spending is your income, and your spending is my income. If we all simultaneously cut back on our spending—if aggregate demand declines—then everybody’s income declines, too.”

Cooper said economists have relied on two policies in the past, and they should continue on relying on it. He said to make sure there is enough aggregate demand, the economists should use; fiscal policy and monetary policy. Cooper explains more that the first thing is the taxes and the government spends and the second is the actions of the federal bank who are in control of money. Cooper believes these two tools have an accelerator and brake pedal. Cooper explains that the fiscal policy, “increased government spending or decreased taxation is our accelerator; the opposite, austerity, is the brake.” As for the monetary policy, Cooper believes that “the federal funds rate can act as either an accelerator or a brake.”

He ends his post by saying that we were able to save ourselves from another economic depression by using the fiscal and monetary policies to keep up the aggregate demand. So he questions why can we use those to boost our economy up again at this moment.

I believe that a lot of talents and skills will go unused, because people will not work. More money should go towards putting those people back to work rather than just giving out free in mail. This would cause inflation, once the government starts to give out money like that. The main concern is calculating the appropriate amount where we drive the economy back to it's potential.

Should the U.S. be preaching freedom of religion overseas?

On February 16, 2014, the editorial board of L.A Times posted, Should the U.S. be preaching freedom of religion overseas?, where they argue that U.S. should be preaching freedom of religion overseas. They start out with talking about how Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted United Nations and quoting that "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion." However, they argue that religion freedom is violated worldwide. 

In this post they discuss President Obama's speech at a National Prayer Breakfast, where he states that religion freedom overseas should be a concern of the U.S. The editorial board agrees with this statement and further talks about his speech: "promoting religious freedom is a key objective of U.S. foreign policy" and they also include that religious minorities all over the world are often being discriminated.  

The editorials also includes that some American do not feel comfortable with this idea however, their response is "But the importance that Congress and the executive branch attach to religious liberty abroad is much more than a sop to American missionaries or the religious right." They also talk about how Christian and other faiths are being persecuted in other countries. 

They suggest that before promoting the religious liberty in foreign countries we need to acknowledge 2 things. They say the very first thing is that U.S. values such as religious freedom, women equality and democratization will be "trumped by other's interests" Second reality, they talk about that even when a country is an ally for whatever reason, the U.S. should speak up when they see any religious rights being violated. They discuss Obama's speech again where he talks about Christians being imprisoned in North Korea and religious minorities being in difficult situation is countries overseas. The editorials conclude by saying that U.S. should preach this message to everyone. 

I think the audiences of this post were the people who are against preaching this message of religious freedom in other countries. I do agree to some extent, for instance the religious liberty is advantageous to everyone in other countries, not only to the followers. When religious freedom would be secured, there would be way less conflicts. Many countries definitely do lack this significant protection. I believe this change would make a positive difference if religion groups across the globe are given the freedom to believe and are treated justly. 

Anti-Obamacare

On Thursday, February 2014, the Washington Post published an articled titled FACT CHECK: Anti-Obama care chorus is off key. This article is mainly based on how Obama care is affecting the workforce in America. The author of this article includes a study, which estimates that the Obama care will cost America approximately 2.3 million full-time jobs. Moreover, people would work fewer hours or take early retirement. The author also included the GOP response, which is that the people are not being fired but rather quitting their jobs on their own. It also talks about the positive and negative aspects of Obama care. The positive side is that the government under the law is paying partially or full for the low-income family with this health insurance; which is also the reason that people are quitting or working few hours. However, on the negative side it says "the law would increase employers’ costs for their workers and reduce the number of people they hire." This would have a negative effect on wages. I found this article very interesting and would recommend because it has a lot of interesting facts and much details about how Obama care will turn out to be in future for our economy since "Everything is guesswork."