Well Informed Citizen part 2

My definition of a well informed citizen has drastically changed since the beginning of the year. A well informed citizen is someone who keeps up with the news, has an opinion and is not afraid to express it, and someone who takes voting seriously and does their part to vote about important topics and issues. I've learned that to be informed you have to clearly know both sides of the argument, and not just one. You have to decide for yourself for what you believe in and make it count by voting. If you want to be heard you need to voice your opinion by petitioning or going out and showing who or what you believe and why. I've also learned that you need to respect other people's beliefs on political issues because everyone has the right to believe in what they want. If people want to voice their opinion but not go out and vote that is perfectly fine too because it is not required to vote. Government has taught me new things and polished up on things that I had already known but not to their full extent.

Final Exam

                                                                    Final Exam

What are the various opinions regarding the future role of our military and how they defend the country?
The United States military plays a huge role in how our country stays safe and keeps the people worry free of attacks and of what could affect them in a drastic way. I asked this question because I would like to get a deeper understanding of the military and how it works as pieces and as a whole.

Military spending has been steadily increasing since 2001 because military size, force structure and spending were cut too deeply in the 1990's. Little of the money that is going to the U.S. military is is being put towards enhancing the U.S. military's cutting edge capabilities. There are very few who want to put our military in harm's way and when we are forced to, mostly every American wants our soldiers to win as fast as possible and with the least amount of casualties. The Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and Army have not been able to move forward with technology at the pace they would like to due to the budget cuts that have been put in place.

The United States military has been through a lot of battles and crisis' dating back to the 1800's. The military has had to deal with battles on land, air, sea and nuclear and biological warfare. Some battles that really stand out are the battle of Midway, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the Vietnam war. In the battle of Midway we were able to put out the Japanese attack by intercepting their radio messages and countering their offensive by deploying aircraft to destroy the Japanese fleet. The Cuban Missile Crisis showed that the United States had ready the best nuclear warfare in the whole world. The Vietnam war proved that the U.S. military could make an impact on a war even when it is told to have a limited role in the war.

The idea of a strong military in the United States is one that many Americans approve of. America needs to be one of the leading nations not only in productivity and education, but also when it comes to being able to protect and defend itself and other nations. Many Americans interpret the military as just a protective service, but it really is a service that helps to establish and keep us safe and provide safety for other nations. President Obama recently outlined a new defense strategy that deals with the crisis of  demanding  hundreds of billions of dollars in Pentagon budget cuts. The president wants to step up and enhance the the United States intelligence gathering and cyber warfare so that, "Our military will be leaner, but the world must know the United States is going to maintain our military superiority." The future of the military is very important to President Obama and he wants to get a smaller but more technically proficient military, especially when it comes to advanced technology. He is trying to work with the budget cuts to make the military more advanced and proficient.  He wants a future where the United States can avoid fighting worst case wars and if we are forced to, we will be able to handle it in the best way.

"American Enterprise Institute." The past Decade of Military Spending: What We Spent, What We Wasted, and What We Need. Web. 04 June 2012. <http://www.aei.org/article/the-past-decade-of-military-spending-what-we-spent-what-we-wasted-and-what-we-need/>.

"Military History." About.com. Web. 05 June 2012. <http://militaryhistory.about.com/>.

"Vietnam War." About.com 20th Century History. Web. 05 June 2012. <http://history1900s.about.com/od/vietnamwar/a/vietnamwar.htm>.

Landler, Mark. "President Approves Defense Bill, Modified." The New York Times. The New York Times, 01 Jan. 2012. Web. 05 June 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/us/politics/obama-signs-military-spending-bill.html>.

PAC's blog

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsPBuKe6_ws





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5m9QZWwIgQ&feature=relmfu





Super Pac's play a huge role in elections. They tell people what is going on with the presidential candidates while making it entertaining at the same time, which is why super pac's have so much success. They tend to be somewhat biased but most ads just try to tackle certain candidates points on very improtant issues. There is no need for the government to keep an eye on super pac groups more closely because they are not doing anything wrong or writing anything that is unjust or harmful compared to regular campaign ads. The Colbert SuperPac Commercial #2 tackles the issue of jobs in Iowa. The commercial doesn't say or show anything harmful or that could be possibly attacking certain individuals. It also shows how important family values are which is a big deal to most Americans. The Repent and Reload ad tackles important issues like gay marriage, abortion, and religion. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, the ad is just expressing what Americans on their side feel. The ways they portray their message may seem controversial, but it gets their point across in what they feel is the best way to do so. These ads may seem like they're more attacking based than regular ads, but in reality they really aren't.

Graphic Analysis

Many people believe that politicians rarely ever agree on certain issues and subjects, but you'd be surprised to see that there are a few things that they feel the same about. The democratic and republican parties both agree that Americans shall not interfere with their fellow Americans' rights. Democrats believe that others must observe, and Republicans feel the same by stating that others must not interfere. They both also believe that role models play a big part in a child's upbringing. Democrats and Republicans both vote for a strong and positive role model, even if they may have different core values than what they expect. Another topic they both agree on is having families built around respect and discipline and to build core values to be the best for not only their children, but also for themselves.  There are many things that Democrats and Republicans disagree on, but at the same time there are many similarities that can be pointed out between the two political parties.

Improvements for electing Presidents

 

                  http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/17/081117fa_fact_lizza


The way elections are run now is not bad or misguided, but to say that there are no improvements that can be made to the current system would not be true. The nominees running for president could spend less money or have a limited amount to spend because so much money is poured into each candidates presidential campaign. Yes, they do need a lot of money to spend to try and sway the American people their way and get their vote but I feel like they could still accomplish what they would deem necessary to achieve their campaign goals even with a lower budget. I also believe that too much money that the candidates have is used on bashing the other candidate and what they're all about. This would force them to rethink their game plan and use their money in more meaningful ways other than talking down their opponent so much. In essence the candidates are trying to lower the other candidates status to the American people instead of being used to promote themselves and appeal to all Americans to the best of their ability. They need to spend more of their valuable time and money on the issues that are important to Americans. The candidates could also stay true to their beliefs and not change them during the course of the election to try and collect votes from the Americans who aren't republican or democrat, even though most believe that the middle votes are considered the most crucial. When the candidates change what they believe in, they may win some of the votes they were looking for, but they can make themselves look untrustworthy and unreliable to some Americans which would cause them to lose some of the votes that they worked so hard to gain. There are many things that candidates will do to win and become president, and sometimes they'll go back and forth on certain issues if they believe it will give them that little extra push that they need.

Electoral College

People say that the current electoral college process for voting is very controversial, and I would have to say that I agree with those people, and that's why I would change the current system. Many people think it's absurd that a candidate could win the popular vote but still lose the election due to electoral college votes. The winner take all system is a system for electing presidents where most electors rarely vote against who their state voted for in the popular election. The current electoral college system awards a specific number of votes proportional to the population of the state so that the power of the state is represented by the population. I would change the electoral process to where everyone's vote counts towards the election of the president and not just where the electoral college votes count. So technically everyone's vote would be equal to those who vote in the electoral college. My system would implement a drastic change and have no electoral college at all, the only votes would be those of the people. Voting would be same, Americans would go to  polling sites to vote but instead of their votes just going into the general popular election, it would count towards the actual presidential race. This system is better than the current system in place because it allows everyone's vote to actually count towards the decision of the next president of the United States, which is a huge deal. With no electoral college, Americans will feel like they have more power and influence on what happens in their country, especially when it comes to voting for the next president. The electoral college has voted down a different route than what the Americans voted for in the general popular election before, so this system will also motivate them to get out and vote, especially if they know that their vote could have a direct impact on how the presidential race plays out. This system allows the president who appeals the most to the people who are high, middle and low class Americans to win and not the president who appeals most to the electoral college which has contradicted the American people before.

                http://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/electoral-college.htm

Constitutional Principles

I believe the most important principle of the Constitution is Checks and Balances. How laws are made is a perfect way to show why checks and balances are so important. To start things off, the legislative branch introduces and votes on a bill. Then the bill goes to the executive branch, where the president decides whether or not to pass the bill. If the president sings the bill, it becomes a law. If he doesn't, it is vetoed and goes back to the legislative branch. The bill then goes back tot he legislative branch, and with enough votes, the legislative branch can alter the executive branch's decision, making the bill into a law. Once the law is in place, Americans can test it through the court system, and this is where the judicial branch steps in. A lawsuit can be filed if someone believes the law is unfair. Lawyers then make arguments for and against the case, and a judge decides which side has demonstrated the most convincing arguments. If the legislative branch doesn't agree with the way the judicial branch has interpreted the law, they can introduce a new piece of legislation, which would start the whole process over again. These are the reasons why I believe Checks and Balances is the most important principle of the constitution, because without them there would be no order and agreement as to what laws should be passed and whether or not they help or hinder the American people. 

Founding Documents

The Declaration of Independence and the Preamble of the Constitution are similar in the way that they both believe that the government can be altered or eradicated if the government becomes too destructive. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it. (Declaration) The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present. (Preamble) And to institute new Government, laying it's foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. (Declaration) Judgement in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law. (Preamble) I believe these are all similar to each other because they deal with changing certain things in the government, from reforms to impeachment of members of the white house. The government can be changed when there is doubt in the current system, especially when the people aren't happy and the members of the government believe something is unjust and affects the right of the people. 

Congress and the Budget Process

It is difficult for politicians to craft a budget because they have to keep in mind what issue they want to commit to and what people it will affect, but by doing so they are leaving less money to go towards other issues, so they have to choose what they believe is most important and what will benefit all Americans the best. One scenario that I faced was whether or not to launch a government run health insurance plan to compete with private insurers. This would be a government run health care that would cover a lot of Americans and pressure private plans to reduce their premiums. But it would cause the federal government to become more involved in providing health insurance. Another decision I had to ponder about was whether or not to raise the social security age. It would save a lot of money but it would also force the elderly to work until they're at age 70, which not all of them would be able to do. The last scenario was whether or not to eliminate most federal education funding. This would save 782 billion dollars but cut the funding for low income and disadvantaged children. I felt that all of these were important because they affected Americans varying in age from very young to the elderly. They all would also drastically change many of the things that we are accustomed to, and some would add to what we already have but some would take take from what we have, which may cause controversy among the people.