In the whirl wind of current events that swarm around U.S politics, an unfair piece of legislation pertaining to taxes is in the process of trying to be passed, but this piece of legislation is unlikely to get passed due to the bill favoring corporations instead of the lower and middle classes. This piece of legislation would provide big businesses with lower tax rates, and would push higher and lower middle class families into a higher tax bracket, and in addition with being pushed into a higher tax bracket, families would receive less benefits from the government (New York Times). This bill should not be passed  because it doesn't favor the citizens of the United States, instead it favors big business, and will leave the lower and middle classes with a higher rate of taxation with fewer benefits. To me that is an unfair arrangement, especially when governmental programs will be cut, even though we will be paying higher taxes. Instead of a bill that favors corporations, we need to put a bill in place that will actually benefit the general public. Our government actually needs to start caring about it citizens rather than putting all their energy into corporations that are already extremely rich. One good thing does come out of this bill if it does get passed, that would be that taxation on alcohol would decrease, so at least while the general public will be paying higher taxes, we can at least purchase cheaper drinks.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/opinion/senate-tax-bill-problems-rush.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-

In the article, "This Isn't a Gun Situation", written by my fellow classmate Lauren Peterson, she criticizes Donald Trumps approach to the issue of gun control. She effectively portrays both sides of the argument on whether gun control is a mental issue/ people issue, or actually a gun issue. She does this with statistics based on how many deaths occur in other countries due to guns, and points out the fact that, "US leads World death by gun with a outstanding number of 27 deaths/day by guns and the second most are Canada and Greece with a number of 5 deaths/day by guns" (Peterson). " This provides Peterson with credibility and further advances her argument that, "The President of the United States of America, needs to do his job and protect his people from these mentally unstable people whom are buying guns and committing these horrendous terrorist attacks" (Peterson). She also uses current events such as the Las Vegas shooting, and the Sutherland shooting to convince her audience to support her side of the argument. Peterson's article/ commentary is well written, credible, and she is super convincing when it comes to getting her audience to support her side of the argument. 

     In the article, “A Tax Cut that Lifts the Economy? Opinions are Split”, written by Patricia Cohen, she reports on the fact that the Republican administration wants to cut taxes dramatically in hopes to revitalize the economy. Although this tax cut seems like a benefit for the economy, promoting business and investment, this tax cut could ultimately have negative effects on the lower and middle classes of the United States. This tax reform that the Republican administration wants to put into effect could just end up driving an even bigger gap between the wealthy 1% of the United States, and the middle and lower classes. Economists are skeptical of this tax deduction because they don’t see how this plan is going to cause a spur of growth in the United States economy when, “Interest rates are already at bargain-basement levels, plenty of potential investment capital is sloshing around, and the official jobless rate is at lows not seen in many years” (Cohen). Most importantly with the deduction of taxes being lowered this will cause the United States to go even more into debt, and have to cut governmental aid programs for the lower and middle classes because, “The cost of the tax package will inevitably deepen the deficit and lead to spending cuts that are likely to hit low- and middle-income workers” (Cohen). Also, another fact to point out as to why this tax reform could be for the worse is the fact that, “New low rates and breaks will not be sustainable over the long term if they do not provide enough money to run the government” (Cohen). Even though the lowering of tax rates could promote new business investment, and create more jobs, it seems as though this tax reform would only benefit the wealthiest of the United States, and the middle and lower classes would get the shorter end of the stick with tax cuts to government aid programs. We need to find a way to where ALL classes will benefit from a tax reform, not just big businesses that don’t care about the everyday average American. “Business folks won’t describe it like this, but I think the best way to describe what it means to be more competitive is to describe it in terms of increasing the standard of living of the American people” (Michael J/Cohen).

     In the article, “The Self-Dealing Presidency of Donald Trump”, written and edited by James Bennet, who is the editorial page editor at the New York Times states that President Trump is exploiting the presidency for his own personal profit, also known as the emolument clause. He provides examples of Trump violating the emolument clause by stating, “Presidents have been generally transparent about their financial holdings, placing assets in blind trusts and releasing their tax returns. Mr. Trump — whose global empire of hotels, real estate, golf courses and other businesses is awash in foreign money — has refused to take those steps.” He also notes that Trump refuses to release any information about his financial standings. Bennet also uses sources such as Brett Shumate, a deputy assistant attorney general, to further push his credibility by stating, “Americans shouldn’t have to worry that their leader’s primary allegiance is to his own financial fortunes.” Bennet also believes that the president should release his business entanglements, debt, and interests so that the general public doesn’t have to worry about if the president has the countries best interests at heart. Bennet’s target audience would be the average American, because this topic not only affects the government, but it also affects the general public’s view of the president. My opinion on the subject would be that it shouldn’t matter if the president releases his financial standings or not because Trump was a business man before he became president, and just because he is the president shouldn’t mean that he needs to release delicate information about his personal businesses. He owns numerous businesses and buildings that contain sensitive information that even I wouldn’t want to be exploited to the general public if I was in Trump’s shoes. Now if this matter directly affects the U.S. government and not just people getting their feelings hurt over the president making a little bit of side money the yes, I do believe that Trump is in violation on the emolument clause. 

     In the article, "Repeal of the Second Amendment", written by Bret Stephens who is Op-Ed columnist on foreign policy and domestic affairs, makes the claim that the government should, "take the guns—or at least the presumptive right to them—away." Stephen backs up his claim with statistical evidence, and common-sense reasoning of homicide rates, and unintentional deaths due to misuse of firearms from credible sources such as Centers for Disease Control, The Washington Post, American Journal of Public Health, and F.B.I. statistics for gun violence. He also sights the Federalist papers and refers to Madison stating that, “I wonder what Madison would have to say about that today, when more than twice as many Americans perished last year at the hands of their fellows as died in battle during the entire Revolutionary War.” Stephens use of sighting Madison is meant to evoke emotion from his intended audience, and to make his audience reflect on the current gun laws that we have in place. His intended audience for his argument is directed toward the average American who is sick and tired of this “wild, wild west” society that we live in. After reading his argument on why we should repeal the second amendment, I would say that Stephens definitely has me in his corner for stricter gun laws, but to completely get rid of the second amendment seems impossible especially when the United States is “gun crazy”. He provides reasons and evidence on why we should repeal the second amendment, but it seems like his argument isn’t a logical solution for gun violence in the United States because not every citizen is just going to give up ownership of their firearms. 

     The article from The New York Times, North Korea Hits New Level of Brinkmanship in Reacting to Trump, by Choe Shunang, should be read because it informs the readers of the rising tensions between North

Korea, and the United States, and how maybe in the near future we could be on the brink of a nuclear war.

This article also highlights the level of immaturity of both Donald Trump and Kim Jong-Un  when dealing 

with political matters through social media.

     "Vicious" name calling and hurt feelings could be what causes the United States and North Korea to

declare nuclear war on one another through tweets from Donald Trump name calling Kim “obviously a madman.”, and Kim calling  Trump a “mentally deranged U.S. dotard" (Shunang).  Besides the obvious immaturity of both leaders, this article also informs the readers of technological advances that North Korea has been making such as their newly developed hydrogen bomb. 

     This article is worth reading because it shows readers the rising tensions between the United States and North Korea.... or more like Mr. Trump and Mr. Kim (The rest of us are just along for the ride.), and technological advances that North Korea has made missile wise.

   

Hello!