Blog 8

            In Give Youth a Voice Expansion, the author argues that the voting age of the United States should be lowered to age sixteen because they are at a time where they are learning about the government. This is not a good idea, because if they are still just starting to learn about the government, they may not have a strong enough education to form a true opinion about what is best for the country. Since this age group is also just beginning to be “exposed to adult-like situations,” they have not had too many yet on their own, and are therefore still learning about becoming a productive adult to society.

Although many other countries have a lower voting age, the United States has a better government than most if not all of those others. This is partially due to the fact that the voting age is higher here and the voters are more educated than those of other countries. As was mentioned in the blog, many people do not want sixteen-year-olds to be allowed to vote since they are “not focused on the actual government and what is happening.” This seems like a rather large problem if people who do not know what is going on with the government are voting, since they may not make the best decisions for the country. Another potential problem is that these younger voters may not make decisions that would benefit the country, but just themselves. Since the blog claims that 16 and 17-year-olds have “less knowledge” but the same “motivation to participate in politics” as older age groups, it seems like an easy decision not to let them vote, as they would decrease the average political knowledge of American voters.

The end of the blog claims that the voting age should be lowered to sixteen so that the younger population can live in a world that they created, but if the voting age remains at eighteen, not only will they still be able to impact the world they will live in, but they will do so by voting with more knowledge. This will actually end up creating a better world for them to live in than it would have been if they were able to vote without important political knowledge at a younger age.

Blog 7

One current United States national government issue is whether to raise taxes on the rich to reduce interest rates on student loans. This is not a good idea, since the people who have become rich have worked hard to do so for themselves and their families. People who are now wealthy were not necessarily always so. Many Americans who are well off now, started out in the middle class or even poverty before they went through the process of college and student loans themselves.

Although it sounds nice now for us students to be able to have smaller interest rates, it is unfair to the people who have already gone through the same process we are currently going through of college and student loans. Even though it may sound nice to students in the short term, it does not make sense for the long term, since we will not want to pay the increased taxes. Instead, we should use the wealthy people as a source of inspiration to continue to work hard on our education to improve our knowledge, earn a stable job, and work our way to wealth.

The tax rates on the rich should not be increased to lower interest rates on student loans, since it is not the responsibility of the wealthy to pay for the opportunity of students. It would be unfair to take their money that they earned by going through the process themselves away from them. If the rich want to donate their money, they can of course still do so without being required to pay through taxes. 

Blog 6

              Sumin, first, I find your title to the fifth blog very interesting, as you claim that Donald Trump is not your president, however, the first sentence of your post states clearly that he is the “leader of the United States”. After that, you claim that Trump is simply an entertainment factor, which has nothing to do with politics. From reading your introduction, it does not make sense that because Trump is on social media, it is obvious that he has made poor choices on who to appoint to his cabinet.

               Another point of yours I disagree with is that Betsy DeVos is a poor choice because of her negative view of the public education system, since she claimed that she would be “a strong advocate for great public schools.” She also added, “If a school is troubled, or unsafe, or not a good fit for a child, we should support a parent’s right to enroll their child in a high-quality alternative.” (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/23/devos-school-choice-will-not-be-mandated-by-washington.html) Her view is that children should be able to receive a quality education and have options available on how to receive that education, which is in fact good for America.

               In the third paragraph of the blog, you claim that Mike Pence is a poor vice president and future candidate for president. However, your argument is controversial, as you state that Pence does not represent the ideas of many Americans, but then add that individuals are hoping for a President Pence. Since the thought of a possible Pence presidency has come up, clearly some Americans support his views and are represented by his actions. Even if many Americans do not agree with his beliefs, many do, as with many politicians. I do not think this paragraph was very beneficial to the argument against Pence, as it does not focus on his political beliefs, but rather the fact that he once called his wife “mother”.

               Finally, I would think it would have been beneficial to your post to provide the names of the other cabinet members who “deserve scrutiny,” and the reasons why they do, since I am not convinced by your post that either DeVos, Pence, or Trump have been detrimental to the United States.

Blog 5

            The United States national government is a representative democracy, meaning the people of the nation hold the power. Citizens of the United States use this power by voting to elect their representatives, who then make decisions on behalf of the citizens. The purpose of creating a government that is controlled by the people of the United States is that no one person or group of people will have too much power over the rest of the nation. This is an important reason as to why the United States government has been so successful for so many years.

Another way the United States government is built to keep the power out of the hands of just one person or group is through the three branches. The United States government consists of the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch. The executive branch consists of the president, the legislative branch is made up of Congress (House of Representatives and Senate), and the judicial branch is the federal courts. Each of these branches use a system of checks and balances to make sure that none of the three become too powerful. In addition to that, the president is elected for a four-year term and may not serve more than two consecutive terms. Members of the House of Representatives are elected for two-year terms and Senators serve six-year terms. The Supreme Court Justice is chosen by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and may serve as long as they maintain good behavior. Because of these laws, the United States government is governed by the entire population of voting citizens, meaning no single person or group will be able to have too much control of the nation.

Blog 4

In the article, "Republican Plan To Repeal Obamacare Like Surgery That Will Kill The Patient," Ian Schwartz argues that both the Republican and Democrat parties must work together to create a new healthcare plan to replace Obamacare. Even though the Republicans thought they could fix the matter on their own in the beginning, the issue has reached the point where it would be beneficial to work together with the entire Senate to reach an agreement.

The author’s intended audience is members of the United States Senate, especially the Republican members who continue to refuse to work together with the Democrats. Schwartz wants the Republicans to realize that if they have not been able to fix the health care issue on their own by now, they may not be able to and should therefore work with the entire Senate. The author is credible as his article was published on a website along with the work of many other credible journalists.

The argument of the article is that the Republicans should work together with the Democrats to create a new health care plan because after all the time they have spent working on the plan alone, there has not been enough progress to meet their goal. One example of this is Senator McCain’s thought, “The Congress must now return to regular order, hold hearings, and receive input from members of both parties.” This shows that Senator McCain believes the Senate’s best option at this point would be to work together. To conclude the article, Schwartz claims, “Now, Republicans are proposing a second surgery that will surely kill the patient.” He is using this example as a metaphor comparing the treatment of a patient to the Republican approach to replacing Obamacare. The point is that instead of trying to just fix what is wrong with Obamacare the Republicans are trying to perfect a new plan, which may ultimately not be put in to place in the end. If the Republicans want to fix Obamacare, they must work together as a Senate, listen to everyone’s opinion, and incorporate all ideas together to make progress. 

Rather than continuing to try to fix everything on their own, the Republicans must try a new approach. If the Republicans cannot work together as a Senate, they may not be able to change Obamacare at all, which would be worse than if they would be able to come to an agreement with everyone to fix the current problems.

Blog 3

In the article, "12 freshman House members: The Senate needs to act on health care," FOX News Opinion argues that the Senate needs to get their act together to replace ObamaCare immediately. Now is the opportunity window for the Republican Senate to get rid of the health care plan that is failing miserably. A big reason the Republicans were voted in to the Senate was to repeal ObamaCare and come up with an alternative way to provide health care.

 The intended audience of this article is the Republican Senators as well as the American voters. The author wants the Senators to understand that it is their job to represent the votes of the American citizens to create a new health care system and get rid of ObamaCare. The author also wants the American citizens to read the article to know that the Senators should be working on a new health care plan now. This is a credible article since it has been written and published for FOX News and even edited again after an update to the situation occurred.

The argument of the article is that the United States Senate needs to create an agreement to get rid of ObamaCare as soon as possible, because ObamaCare is currently causing so many people to suffer. With the Affordable Care Act, 35,000 people have no insurance providers available to them at all while 3 million only have one option. Due to this limited availability of insurance options, the rates have become ridiculously expensive and unaffordable. For example, a lady named Michelle Harris has arthritis from years of serving tables as a waitress but cannot afford medical attention. She claims, “It hurts, but we don’t have that kind of money.” Another lady, Irene Solesky, a mortgage underwriter, believes “medical insurance is actually driving people to financial ruin.” It is crazy that people are struggling financially because of medical insurance when the whole point of insurance is to protect people in case of an emergency. If this insurance will put people in debt, it would be smarter to not even pay for medical insurance and hope for the best when it comes to our health.

Since ObamaCare has given people less choice and availability of insurance providers and increased the cost of health insurance, the Senate must figure out a way to end this disaster. With now being the time to act for Republicans in the Senate, it is crucial that the Senators represent the citizens’ votes to fix healthcare in America.

Blog Stage 2

In the New York Times, I read an article about a new health bill unveiled by Senate Republicans. The proposal is aimed to replace the Affordable Care Act and lower health insurance costs for consumers while keeping a pair of taxes on high-income people. The goal of the bill is to lessen the gap between the moderate and conservative Republicans. Although the new bill has been announced, the moderates are still concerned for the people who would not be insured, while the conservatives want less regulation of health insurance. Even though repealing the Affordable Care Act is a huge goal of the House Republicans and President Trump, passing this bill seems to be very difficult in the Senate. If the new bill is passed, health insurance may be cheaper, however insurance providers could avoid consumer protections currently in place due to the Affordable Care Act, such as discrimination based on a person's health status, medical condition or history, and disabilities. This article is worth reading because if the bill is enacted, it would get rid of the work done over the past fifty years by presidents of both parties attempting to expand health insurance coverage.