The Presidential debates have brought about several new tax reform proposals. The most significant of these proposals is that of Presidential Electee Barack Obama. He proposed tax cuts for those making under $75,000 a year and higher taxes for those making $200,000 to $250,000 a year. Although newly elected President Barack Obama believes that taxing the rich will help support the middle class, this type of taxing will actually yield harsh criticism and citizen discontent because wealthier Americans don't want to pay for the middle and lower classes, wealthier Americans won't see it as fair, and it will put Obama in a vulnerable position.
Wealthy Americans do not see fit that they should be the ones supporting the rest of the U.S. Many of them worked hard for the money they now have. Why should they have to pay more if they worked harder? The rich were given tax cuts during George Bush’s reign as President. This was not something the wealthy asked for, but just something that was given to them. Bush was irresponsible in giving the wealthy a tax cut. According to Liz Sidoti, “Obama, the Democrat, seemingly has a traditional liberal outlook of taxing the rich more while having the government help people of more modest means through tax breaks” (Sidoti 2008). The rich are not an advocate to losing a piece of their money in order to help pay for the middle and lower classes.
Several wealthy Americans have however, responded in a positive manner, saying that as long as the extra tax money is going towards a good cause, such as school funding, getting out of poverty, or any other productive expenditure, they were fine with it. The Bush tax cuts were not good for the middle class. They were meant to benefit the wealthy. There have been higher unemployment rates, more poverty, and a greater debt for America. Barack Obama responded to George Bush’s State of the Union Address saying, "We heard the President say he wants to make tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans permanent, when we know that at a time of war and economic hardship, the last thing we need is a permanent tax cut for Americans who don't need them and weren't even asking for them. What we need is a middle class tax cut, and that's exactly what I will provide as President" (Obama 2008). Tax cuts for the middle/lower classes and raising the taxes back to what they were for the wealthier citizens may just be what this country needs for stabilization.
The recent stock market fluctuations have hit the wealthy hard. They are losing money and having a hard time during this economic crisis just like everyone else. It is not fair in their eyes that the taxes be raised for them. Many of the wealthy have worked hard to get where they are today. Taxing them higher is like punishing them for all the hard work they have poured into becoming successful over the years. The wealthy will not see the taxes as being fair. It is their money and being punished for having more is not right. The rich are not all alike. Many are giving and cherish helping those in need. With the taxes being raised back to how they were in the 1990’s, the economy may be able to start its ascent to stability.
Obama will be put into a very vulnerable position with the tax reforms on the wealthy. There are death threats floating around against him. Many assumptions point towards the wealthy white politicians who are the ones who are doing the threatening. They are upset over taxes and feel that they could easily throw the blame on white supremacists. Barack is in a very compromising position where he needs to be careful. America is on edge in this day and age.
Much of America is on Obama’s side though. Middle America makes up the vast majority of the U.S. and they support the taxation reforms. Economic stability is key in the survival of America. We need change. Barack is very brave to stand up and put forth effort to fix America. In these times, help is needed and money is scarce. The taxing will provide more for Americans.
The tax reforms proposed by Barack Obama are essential for America. In order to succeed, everyone needs to pitch in. The wealthy may feel that it unjustified and unfair, but really it is for the good of the country. Barack is putting himself in a vulnerable position, showing that he is willing to rhisk it all for a better change. With a new tax reform and Bush out of office, economic stability may just be possible in the near future.
Obama, Barack H. "Response to the State of the Union." Washington, D.C. 12 Nov. 2008.
Sidoti, Liz. "McCain, Obama Offer Different Visions on Taxes." AARP Bulletin Today. 17 June 2008.
AARP. 24 Nov. 2008
http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourworld/politics/articles/mccain_obama_offer_different_visions_on_taxes.html?cmp=knc-360i-google-bull&hbx_ou=50&hbx_pk=obama_tax_plan>.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Lindsey Grennan Cause/Effect Workshop
1. Although perscription drugs are prescribed to help patients, there are not always benefits because they are addictive, abused, and in many cases a way of tearing apart a family.
2. Yes, Yes.
3. List the cause(s). Thousands of anti-depressants and mood stabilizers are prescribed each year.
4. List the effect(s). They have addictive tendencies, they are often abused, and the abuse of these drugs can lead to the neglect of children involved.
Audience
Doctors who prescribe the meds and people who experience the tragedy. It is kind of both, but mainlyin opposition to the doctors. How can you tell? Give specific examples. Because she is specifically directing her argument towards the ones who prescribe the drugs. She is telling them the drugs destroy families if not carefully monitored.
Counterargument
List the counterarguments (arguments of the author’s oppositions) used in the paper (there should be at least three). Does the author adequately address these arguments? Not completely. Do you think there are other arguments that could be addressed? Yes. Do you see any logical fallacies? No.
1.These feelings are great improvements for patients who have trouble managing their feelings of distress, anger, sadness, confusion ,etc.
2.Perscription drugs have benefits.
3.
Title
No, maybe a title that has something to do with drugs, such as Addiction.
Introduction
Yes, "Mental heath disorders are among the most confusing and incomprehensible disorders around."
Conclusion
summarizes the thesis and arguments. It is a good conclusion.
Flow/Transitions
Yes, they flow fairly well.
2. Yes, Yes.
3. List the cause(s). Thousands of anti-depressants and mood stabilizers are prescribed each year.
4. List the effect(s). They have addictive tendencies, they are often abused, and the abuse of these drugs can lead to the neglect of children involved.
Audience
Doctors who prescribe the meds and people who experience the tragedy. It is kind of both, but mainlyin opposition to the doctors. How can you tell? Give specific examples. Because she is specifically directing her argument towards the ones who prescribe the drugs. She is telling them the drugs destroy families if not carefully monitored.
Counterargument
List the counterarguments (arguments of the author’s oppositions) used in the paper (there should be at least three). Does the author adequately address these arguments? Not completely. Do you think there are other arguments that could be addressed? Yes. Do you see any logical fallacies? No.
1.These feelings are great improvements for patients who have trouble managing their feelings of distress, anger, sadness, confusion ,etc.
2.Perscription drugs have benefits.
3.
Title
No, maybe a title that has something to do with drugs, such as Addiction.
Introduction
Yes, "Mental heath disorders are among the most confusing and incomprehensible disorders around."
Conclusion
summarizes the thesis and arguments. It is a good conclusion.
Flow/Transitions
Yes, they flow fairly well.
Hail to the Chief
The Presidential debates have brought about several new tax reform proposals. The most significant of these proposals is that of Presidential Electee Barack Obama. He proposed tax cuts for those making under $75,000 a year and higher taxes for those making $200,000 to $250,000 a year. Although newly elected President Barack Obama believes that taxing the rich will help support the middle class, this type of taxing will actually yield harsh criticism and citizen discontent because wealthier Americans don't want to pay for the middle and lower classes, wealthier Americans won't see it as fair, and it will put Obama in a vulnerable position.
Wealthy Americans do not see fit that they should be the ones supporting the rest of the U.S. Many of them worked hard for the money they now have. Why should they have to pay more if they worked harder? The rich were given tax cuts during George Bush’s reign as President. This was not something the wealthy asked for, but just something that was given to them. Bush was irresponsible in giving the wealthy a tax cut. The rich are not an advocate to losing a piece of their money in order to help pay for the middle and lower classes.
Several wealthy Americans have however, responded in a positive manner, saying that as long as the extra tax money is going towards a good cause, such as school funding, getting out of poverty, or any other productive expenditure, they were fine with it. The Bush tax cuts were not good for the middle class. They were meant to benefit the wealthy. There have been higher unemployment rates, more poverty, and a greater debt for America. Barack Obama responded to George Bush’s State of the Union Address, saying "We heard the President say he wants to make tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans permanent, when we know that at a time of war and economic hardship, the last thing we need is a permanent tax cut for Americans who don't need them and weren't even asking for them. What we need is a middle class tax cut, and that's exactly what I will provide as President" (Obama 2008). Tax cuts for the middle/lower classes and raising the taxes back to what they were for the wealthier citizens may just be what this country needs for stabilization.
The recent stock market fluctuations have hit the wealthy hard. They are losing money and having a hard time during this economic crisis just like everyone else. It is not fair in their eyes, that the taxes be raised for them. Many of the wealthy have worked hard to get where they are today. Taxing them higher is like punishing them for all the hard work they have poured into becoming successful over the years. The wealthy will not see the taxes as being fair. It is their money and being punished for having more is not right.
The rich are not all alike. Many are giving and cherish helping those in need. With the taxes being raised back to how they were in the 1990’s, the economy may be able to start its ascent to stability.
Obama will be put into a very vulnerable position with the tax reforms on the wealthy. There are death threats floating around against him. Many assumptions point towards the wealthy white politicians who are the ones who are doing the threatening. They are upset over taxes and feel that they could easily throw the blame on white supremacists. Barack is in a very compromising position where he needs to be careful. America is on edge in this day and age.
Much of America is on Obama’s side though. Middle America makes up the vast majority of the U.S. and they support the taxation reforms. Economic stability is key in the survival of America. We need change. Barack is very brave to stand up and put forth effort to fix America. In these times, help is needed and money is scarce. The taxing will provide more for Americans.
The tax reforms proposed by Barack Obama are essential for America. In order to succeed, everyone needs to pitch in. The wealthy may feel that it unjustified and unfair, but really it is for the good of the country. Barack is putting himself in a vulnerable position, showing that he is willing to risk it all for a better change. With a new tax reform and Bush out of office, economic stability may just be possible in the near future.
Obama, Barack H. "Response to the State of the Union." Washington, D.C. 12 Nov. 2008.
Wealthy Americans do not see fit that they should be the ones supporting the rest of the U.S. Many of them worked hard for the money they now have. Why should they have to pay more if they worked harder? The rich were given tax cuts during George Bush’s reign as President. This was not something the wealthy asked for, but just something that was given to them. Bush was irresponsible in giving the wealthy a tax cut. The rich are not an advocate to losing a piece of their money in order to help pay for the middle and lower classes.
Several wealthy Americans have however, responded in a positive manner, saying that as long as the extra tax money is going towards a good cause, such as school funding, getting out of poverty, or any other productive expenditure, they were fine with it. The Bush tax cuts were not good for the middle class. They were meant to benefit the wealthy. There have been higher unemployment rates, more poverty, and a greater debt for America. Barack Obama responded to George Bush’s State of the Union Address, saying "We heard the President say he wants to make tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans permanent, when we know that at a time of war and economic hardship, the last thing we need is a permanent tax cut for Americans who don't need them and weren't even asking for them. What we need is a middle class tax cut, and that's exactly what I will provide as President" (Obama 2008). Tax cuts for the middle/lower classes and raising the taxes back to what they were for the wealthier citizens may just be what this country needs for stabilization.
The recent stock market fluctuations have hit the wealthy hard. They are losing money and having a hard time during this economic crisis just like everyone else. It is not fair in their eyes, that the taxes be raised for them. Many of the wealthy have worked hard to get where they are today. Taxing them higher is like punishing them for all the hard work they have poured into becoming successful over the years. The wealthy will not see the taxes as being fair. It is their money and being punished for having more is not right.
The rich are not all alike. Many are giving and cherish helping those in need. With the taxes being raised back to how they were in the 1990’s, the economy may be able to start its ascent to stability.
Obama will be put into a very vulnerable position with the tax reforms on the wealthy. There are death threats floating around against him. Many assumptions point towards the wealthy white politicians who are the ones who are doing the threatening. They are upset over taxes and feel that they could easily throw the blame on white supremacists. Barack is in a very compromising position where he needs to be careful. America is on edge in this day and age.
Much of America is on Obama’s side though. Middle America makes up the vast majority of the U.S. and they support the taxation reforms. Economic stability is key in the survival of America. We need change. Barack is very brave to stand up and put forth effort to fix America. In these times, help is needed and money is scarce. The taxing will provide more for Americans.
The tax reforms proposed by Barack Obama are essential for America. In order to succeed, everyone needs to pitch in. The wealthy may feel that it unjustified and unfair, but really it is for the good of the country. Barack is putting himself in a vulnerable position, showing that he is willing to risk it all for a better change. With a new tax reform and Bush out of office, economic stability may just be possible in the near future.
Obama, Barack H. "Response to the State of the Union." Washington, D.C. 12 Nov. 2008.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Week 10 Reading Response
David Rieff's argument questions the assumptions made by Americans and the Bush Administration, such as "people will choose freedom over tyranny and tolerance over extremism every time" and "American ideals should prevail." These assumptions are the reason that we are still at war. We assume and therefore do not take the time to understand the cultural differences and needs. These assumptions need to be questioned, because they follow history. As Rieff says, "History rarely repeats itself." David talks of how Americans have very different ideas of freedom than do those of the Islamic belief. We are different people with different values and backgrounds. He talks of how we are built upon different systems and how because of this, it will be harder to change the Muslims to the Americanized democracy/ideals.
I believe that we need to become less involved in things we do not fully understand. Once we are able to understand the culture, the beliefs, and the history of their religion and where they come from...then we will be able to get involved. Involved in the opposite way the Bush Administration got the U.S. involved. Questioning some one's assumptions is often a useful strategy in constructing an argument, because you can see what their views are and how strong their counter-argument is. We should not just be jumping into a war if we do not have a real in-depth plan. To think that Bush was so inconceivable with the words he chose in addressing the world so many different times. Understanding the opponent and getting in their head, being one step ahead is the only way to beat them.
I believe that we need to become less involved in things we do not fully understand. Once we are able to understand the culture, the beliefs, and the history of their religion and where they come from...then we will be able to get involved. Involved in the opposite way the Bush Administration got the U.S. involved. Questioning some one's assumptions is often a useful strategy in constructing an argument, because you can see what their views are and how strong their counter-argument is. We should not just be jumping into a war if we do not have a real in-depth plan. To think that Bush was so inconceivable with the words he chose in addressing the world so many different times. Understanding the opponent and getting in their head, being one step ahead is the only way to beat them.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Bernstein Reading Response
#1 Richard Bernstein argues that America's tragedies are nothing like the third world countries and their disasters, but nontheless, Europeans are supporting and sending help. Bernstein asks a simple question, "why?" Why is Europe's response the way it is? He uses responses/quotes from several Europeans and European newspapers to show what the Europeans are thinking. The United States is the richest country. The fact that the Bush Administration did not go along with the "Kyoto Protocol" upset many Europeans. It shows that the U.S. must not care about their admissions and that in a way they brought the disaster onto themselves. It was also disturbing to Europeans to see gun battles, looting, and armed gangs in the midst of the wreckage, but in the third world countries, when a disaster was occuring, non of this was going on. It was bringing shame to the U.S. and it was hard to watch for Europeans. They did not know whether to contribute their time and money or not. Would it help or would it just be wasted? The Europeans say we, the Americans lack "solidarity." In times of crisis, it is incredible to see that people are still wrecking havoc in an already miserable situation.
Visual Reading Response Week 9
#3)It is true that there are risks to stereotyping and especially to portraying stereotypes. If one performs the stereotype of a group that he or she is a member of, it is often times seen as being o.k. or funny. Some people, whether a member or not, see stereotyping as being very wrong and hurtful in many ways. Performing of a group that he or she is not a member is risky. It can cause uprisings, racial comments, or even hate crimes. It is very strange that the stakes are so different from eachother. It is all based on how the populations of the world have been taught. The stereootypes they are taught get portrayed. Not all performances are humorous or must be humorous. This is usually the best, if not the only way to get away with stereotyping groups. Humor seems to have an affect that lets things go. It has a carisma about it, letting the tension become loose or non existant. They will not always be offensive. Most stereotypes are, because thats how stereotypical performances are. They are offensive, but some stereotypes are true and sometimes non-offensive to the group being portrayed. The upbringing of each individual, what he or she learns, depends on what stereotypes are engraved into their minds.
Research Rough Draft Workshop 1 (Lindsey G.)
Overall
1. Your paper has good passion. It seems like you are really interested and care about overfishing. Personally, I like the facts given to support your views.
2. Your organization is a bit scattered. You should jot it all down and arrange it to what works the best. I think once you do this, you will have a better paper all around, because your arguments and counterarguments will flow.
Thesis
3. You do express your own opinion. You are arguing that overfishing is devastating and needs to be stopped at once, but you need counter arguments.
4. The conservation and animal lovers will agree with you. The fishermen and businesses who rely on the fish market will disagree.
5. Yes.
Content
6. Honestly....it needs work, lots of work. I would rate it a 4, maybe a 5.
7.Your into paragraph could use a better lead in sentence, and try to use less "world wide" references. Make counterarguments as well.
8.That fishing creates lots of jobs, it feeds millions and the fish need to be fished.
9.No
10.Yes, it is pretty clear.
Style
11. The transitions are good.
12. No it is really not an attention grabber. Try starting with a startling fact or something of that nature. Capture the reader!
13. Your concluding paragraph is not too shabby. Touch it up a bit. revise it and it will be good.
Research
14. 1
15. Only uses 1
16. No
17. Yes, fix this, you have the info...use it :)
18. Seems that way.
19. You did comment, just add more quotes.
1. Your paper has good passion. It seems like you are really interested and care about overfishing. Personally, I like the facts given to support your views.
2. Your organization is a bit scattered. You should jot it all down and arrange it to what works the best. I think once you do this, you will have a better paper all around, because your arguments and counterarguments will flow.
Thesis
3. You do express your own opinion. You are arguing that overfishing is devastating and needs to be stopped at once, but you need counter arguments.
4. The conservation and animal lovers will agree with you. The fishermen and businesses who rely on the fish market will disagree.
5. Yes.
Content
6. Honestly....it needs work, lots of work. I would rate it a 4, maybe a 5.
7.Your into paragraph could use a better lead in sentence, and try to use less "world wide" references. Make counterarguments as well.
8.That fishing creates lots of jobs, it feeds millions and the fish need to be fished.
9.No
10.Yes, it is pretty clear.
Style
11. The transitions are good.
12. No it is really not an attention grabber. Try starting with a startling fact or something of that nature. Capture the reader!
13. Your concluding paragraph is not too shabby. Touch it up a bit. revise it and it will be good.
Research
14. 1
15. Only uses 1
16. No
17. Yes, fix this, you have the info...use it :)
18. Seems that way.
19. You did comment, just add more quotes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
