blog stage 8

This is a criticism of “military spending” by US government.  My first point of criticism is that our military did not spend 600 billion dollars last year it spent 598.5 according to a national priorities article (https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/military-spending-united-states/).  The points that this person forgets to take into the there report in is that we have been acting like the police man of the world for the last possible 20 plus years.  There also is something else that virtually no military has which is a large amount of foreign bases. Which means that we have bases around the globe in different countries.  No other country has this many foreign bases, the closet country is probably Russia or china, they both have bases outside their respective countries boarders , but very few china to my knowledge has some in the south china sea, Djibouti, and Russia has about 10 all over the world. According to Ron  Paul, we have over 900 active military bases in total.  That a lot of solders to feed, arm, clothe and pay around the world.  This is compared to Russia or china which has no even close to half the number of bases around the world.   This person also bring up the 9/11 ( may those victims rest in peace) tragedy, that did cause a massive spike in military spending, not only in defense of our country against terrorism but in the building of a lot more military supplies like tanks, guns …....  There is something that this person didn’t talk about which was that we had to retro fit our intelligence agencies from using cold war tactics and technology, basically, we went from counting communist tanks and nukes, to trying to find one terrorist in the whole county of Afghanistan for example. That retrofit is still taking place today even, that is also part of why are military spending is so high compared to the rest of the world. the overlying reason that our military budget is so high is that we have a lot of bases, our equipment, and our spying agencies cost a hell of a lot of money to operate , because are stuff is so advanced and expensive that it is hard to keep  the costs down. This person had also mentioned the point of that the military spending is going down, they also point out that this could have been happening much sooner , well it could not have because of the wars we keep fighting and the investment we keeping making in weapon systems that have massive issues.  We are also coming out of some massive wars  that is why it has been reduced, but not by much comparatively.   Link to class mates blog that I criticized: https://dsusgovt.blogspot.com/

Donald trumps campaign promises

How Donald trump has already begun on keeping his campaign promises. He has started by keeping his campaign promises by making deals with specially the ac manufacture carrier.  He has done this by giving them 7 million dollars in tax incentives over the next decade. President-elect has received a call from Tim cook per fortune, that he is planning to bring back, or build some more device manufacturing facilities in the united states, in addition to the mac pro manufacturing here In Texas. There also is the point that ford is considering moving the manufacturing that is in Mexico, that manufacture their small cars, pickup trucks, and some of their suv line is made in Mexico. I estimated there is over 5000 plus jobs that could be moved back into the U.S., Just in ford manufacturing jobs. It could also be used to build new factories in the U.S.  There are also other possibilities that trump could bring back some of Chrysler manufacturing, back to the states, that includes the dodge ram products, and a large percentage of the FCA products that are made in Mexico that go to the U.S.  Then there is gmc or Chevy, where an even larger portion of their products are made in Mexico. So in closing , Donald trump has started  to fulfill his campaign promises even before he has taken office .   

blog stage 6

My criticism of US governments “should the government pay for my tuition?”. First off the observation that college tuition continues to rise for most cases is true. Unless you are emancipated from your parents or your parents are not capable of working. In those cases, the cost of tuition is much less, because of government subsidies that help the poorer people, insolvent people that don’t have parents that can help to pay for college. The second pertinent point that my classmate brings up is that to have the government to pay for tuition would increase the burden for the taxpayers which already get taxed enough, and with the burden of welfare to the taxpayers.  For regular people to afford college, the fed needs to deflate the dollar to make it worth more, so the people who even make 60k a year can afford college when it only costs for one semester 500 dollars. This also would boost the U.S. economy    and increase the wealth of the people who make less money assuming that their income would stay the same .

Link to blog that I criticized: https://dsusgovt.blogspot.com/2016/11/should-government-pay-for-my-tuition.html?m=1

blog stage 5

The U.S. government has many issues but the one I will focus on is the electoral college. The issue of the electoral college is that it is an outdated system that would allow people to override the vote of people if they determined the people decision was wrong. This idea was valid when the country first started out and a major portion of the population was illiterate and very uneducated. If memory serves me well the population was   80 percent uneducated in this country. That has drastically decreased since the system was implemented, it is 21 percent per google, it was a 59 percent drop in illiteracy and educatedness in America.  So, the only point, in my opinion, is for the elite, to control the elections and put people in office that will help them and their friends, to make even more money and control the white house, which is the office in the last 30 years that has started “wars”. So, if they put people in office that want war so that they can make money. So, that lets them undermine the vote of the American people and who they want to put in office. Also, this will let them control all the policies that the president approves, in the way that he owes them for funding their campaign and arranging the “fair election” of the president. This system needs to be removed and not replaced what so ever. it needs to be replaced by a fair system in where the amount of people that vote for that party are in each state would be given that percent of the votes. Thus, the candidate with the most votes from the states. The second option is that the two candidates with the most votes would run the country.

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2016-10-19.html#read_more

Ann Coulter intended audience is the conservatives and the libertarians that support trump. The author's credibility is very high she has been writing books about liberals lies and the actual truth about how the media reports it and what their biases are. Her argument is that Hillary advantage in the election is the media, and Trump's advantage is the issues that he puts forth. The argument previously stated is the claim of the article. The evidence that Ann Coulter brings to the table is that there are various popular positions that trump takes that most other republican candidates would not take, that would not have been a boon to them on the campaign election trail.  Hillary Clinton has the media focused on the untruth of the opposition side of sex acts “adultery and rape”. As stated “When the last name of the perp is "Kennedy" or "Clinton," they're not interested. When it's "the Duke lacrosse team": Guilty.” She talks about how they don’t do journalism to find out if for example the lacrosse team actual raped the black hookers. If the scandal involves people who are with the liberal media, they are simply ignored and swept under the rug, But if the scandal involves people on the other side of the isle they will make stuff up, or pay people to say things to put blame on the other candidate. They have done one of the two things that I have stated before as she has put out examples, in her article. The other is speculation, with a high amount of evidence behind it. Her logic is clearly presented , with examples of how the mainstream media is against trump and is for Hillary. She provides many examples of how this happens .   

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/06/opinion/the-supreme-court-revisits-insider-trading.html?ref=topics&_r=0 is the link for The article The supreme court revisits insider trading.

The author's intended audience is the one for the New York times. The New York times is a very left leaning news source.  The author's credibility comes from a wide range of the people that sit on the board that co-writes these articles, that have a variety of backgrounds in the journalistic field. On top of this, they have a range of ages and experiences in life. In which that can give them credibility.   The boards argument, and first part of their argument is there claim is that “If Mr. Salman’s conviction is overturned, any insider could freely disclose confidential information to relatives who could then trade on it, and so long as the insider didn’t ask for any money in return, no one would be liable”. (quote from the article). The second part of their argument was there evidence of this claim. In my opinion, the evidence is not really there and is more implied, nothing that I read had given any sort of hard statics or evidence about what would happen if the suit went in the favor of Mr. Salomon’s side. The third part of their augment   is there logic, I looked and looked everywhere for it. The only logic I found was one based on assumptions and emotion which is not logic. Logic applies statics, scientific studies, and hard fact based evidence. This article had none, it was a barren desert of logic with no water in sight. Here’s just an example of that “logic” “They also say that “But absolving Mr. Salman would set a precedent that would make the fight to stop illegal insider trading even harder.” How do they know that absolving Mr. Salman would make it harder to stop illegal trading? Do they present any statics from cases in the same subject from other courts and what happened if they absolved some one of their insider trading charges, no they don’t? They don’t even present statistics or any sort of hard evidence what happened to people who did get convicted what happened to insider trading. They could have presented evidence other countries courts for comparisons for what might happen.  

link to usa today article

Obama rejects terrorism lawsuit bill, setting up first veto override battle

   The article from the USA today informs the U.S. Public that President Obama had vetoed a bill today. This bill would have allowed U.S. citizens to sue countries that their citizens had taken part in the 9/11 terrorist attacks and other similar attacks. The reason the president had vetoed the bill was that the ” The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, or JASTA, would provide an exception to the doctrine of "sovereign immunity," which holds that one country can't be sued in another country's courts” ( cited from the article linked above).

This would not allow us to be immune to these types of lawsuits anymore, if this were to pass , that is why the president vetoed the  bill. The republican head of the senate said he will have this overturned quickly. The two presidential candidates both said that they would not veto. In short, this article was about  the president not passing a bill when members of the senate would and the presidential candidates would.This article is worth reading because it talks about how and why the president vetoed the bill . Also, it gives the reaction of the bills sponsor and how he reacted, and the candidate's responses to what they would have done  in that situation if they were president.

Usa today

link to article http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/09/23/obama-veto-terrorism-lawsuit-bill-setting-up-override-battle/90407496/