Blog Stage Eight: Comment on a colleague's work #2

Simon, great organization of your critique. The author has valid points. Both Simon and the author of the article "Trump-Reagan parallels are scary, but not for the reasons critics think," agree that violence is never the answer.  After president Trump came to office, the line separating Americans from each other has become clearer. Violence has increased among people. This is due to stereotype of different groups. The author focuses in comparing Trump and other leaders in history. Comparing both Trump and Regan has caused many to wonder in what way? As humans we are all different and have different opinions of each president. For example back then when Reagan was in office many disagree with his beliefs and views. Now as president Trump continues his duties as a president to “Make America great again” he has many people who do not agree with him. Both leaders may have many things in common but what is the difference now to then Simon? The only thing that is very different from then to now, in my point of view is violence has increased.

Blog stage 7

Who will give me a break?

The president of the United States of America has a plan that he believes will work. President Trump has presented his new tax plan that he hopes will “make America great again.” His proposition of corporate taxes being cut was presented on Wednesday morning. His plan to reduce taxes is to decrease taxes by 15% rather than the 35% according to the data team from The Economist. This means that the president is cutting percent’s by more than half. The cost of Donald Trump’s corporate tax plan is estimated at $200bn. The actual potential savings from eliminating all corporate tax breaks is $126bn. So the plan was presented but the data did not add up.

Many corporations in America have to pay taxes. The more that is deducted at the end of the year the less money that will be charged in taxes. Money that is spend on donations or food for the company can be deducted at the end of the year. So this means that all the complementary food the bosses provided were not bought with good intention, but more as money that can be deducted at the end of the year. However this does not mean everyone does this, it just shows how a simple meal from the company to the employees can be used as a tax deduction at the end of the year. In the other hand everyone has to pay taxes. For example if you buy a sweater you had to pay taxes on the item. In the state of Texas it is 8.25% tax so the sweater price plus tax. So at the end of the year if you haven’t donated that sweater and received a tax write of form then you will be taxed more on the tax return. Now this does not seem fair to many including Sahadi an author of the alticle “De esta forma el plan de impuestos de Trump” for CNN Español. The author refers Trumps plan as “a plan for the rich.”

This shows how many people would disagree on why Trump’s plans focuses on only one side. Trump wanting major tax cut without knowing a way to pay for it. This proportion will be difficult getting it passed.

Blog stage six

Ronnie, I see your argument and I agree with you one hundred percent. I think that many Americans take for granted their freedom. I feel that today society has influenced people to think about money. For example like you said you have been all over the world. You have witness first hand how many Americans take for granted what we use every day. I have worked with many people that were in the military and I can see the struggle. She server in the army since she was eighteen years old and now suffers from many health issues. Although I believe the military  is a decision many take knowing the consequences, I still believe that as a country we should do much more for our troops.  I think the main idea about this is to stop focusing on small things and start focusing on the people who have sacrificed so much for this country and their families. I think that all military personnel should be taken care of and their families after going through the military.
Thank you for your service! 

Blog stage five

Deep in the heart of Texas

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Sunday singed a bill that not only allows law enforcement to question the immigration status but this bill will also band sanctuary cites in Texas. This comes after president Trump announced that he would cut billion of dollars from sanctuary cities. The author of Texas governor signs bill banning sanctuary cities shows the drastic change form undocumented people.  this is alarming since Texas is such a close state to Mexico. This bill was aimed to create a safe environment to the public and to keep criminals out of Texas.  However this is not the way to stop criminal form Texas. This bill could potentially back fire. The reason is that many undocumented who are in Texas witness or are part of a crime, the likelihood of them seeking help from the police would be small.  In the article the author gives many examples f how this would not encourage undocumented people to seek help from the police because of fear of being deported. The article also talks about how any law enforcement who chooses not to ask a person who they think is undocumented will be penalized. This could also hurt the law enforcement to decrease its members. For example to be a police officer one of the requirements is to be a U.S citizen, but many citizen who were born here in the United States could have family or parents who are undocumented. This would put the person in a stressful situation for the officer who has to obey the law and if he does not then he will be punished. I agree with the author and believe that the bill violets many rights that the United States has. This bill will not decrease the amount of crime.

Blog stage four

Throughout the article the author uses emotional, logical and ethos appeal to establish his credibility. The author starts with anecdotes in his first attempt to compare cause and effect. The author uses Roy Hallum receiving as expert’s testimony to appeal to the audience for the article credibility. The second cause and effect can be found in paragraph two, where Memphis resident was kidnaped and taken to Iraq was link to an immigration fraud. The author uses facts to attempt to establish his credibility. The author does not address the opposition making his argument weak. He is bias and is trying to aim at the audience of conservatives because based on the events that the immigration fraud was linked to an ex kidnaper of an American will make conservatives more concern in the current laws. The article is aimed at citizens of America who feel the compaction of a citizen. This articles brings the question of how America is a “free country” and lets criminals in. This article is aimed at the audience that are opposed to immigration reforms and laws. The article did not address the opposition in the article making the audience believe he is also opposed to immigration. The author uses logic by providing the audience with Hallum’s testimony. He attempts to address the opposition in the last paragraph by comparing the system that let the kidnaper in America after what he did, calling it “Whatever system he had did not work.” This appeal to the audience as the United States having the knowledge to be able to link one and one. In my opinion the author is bias and in order to be able to agree or disagree the author needs to provide more facts, statistics and more expert’s testimony. However in my opinion I do think that the U.S has to create a policy that links criminals from other countries inside the U.S before it is too late and family and friends are at risk. caseof America kidnapped in Iraq

Blog stage three

In the article the author’s argument is that the stock market will soon get a wakeup call from the choices that president Trump is making this is shown in the second paragraph “But analysts now caution that Trumphoria in the stock market could soon crash into a harsh Washington reality” The author tries to persuade the opposition by proving experts testimony in paragraph three, “The stock market is completely wrong,” said Douglas Kass of hedge fund Seabreeze Partners. This shows how the author uses experts to persuade the audience. The author also uses statistics to attempt credibility in paragraph four and eleven “The bank’s stock price is up about 40 percent since Trump was eleceted, part of big rally in financial stocks on the assumption that Trump will be able to quickly roll back the Dodd-Frank financial reform act, something that Washington analysts also think will be much harder than the market seems to believe.” This shows the author using statistics to establish his credibility. Throughout the article the author tries to prove his credibility and by providing statistics and experts testimony to prove his credibility. The author’s argument against the stock market making decision that later on might turn out to be a mistake. I agree with the author. I believe that some of the trading and investments might not be the smartest idea without knowing the tax reform. The author can use more statistics and experts testimony from the opposition to be less bias and influence the audience better. By doing this the author can address the opposition.  

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-stock-market-bubble-235328

Stage Two

Guess who is back?

On may 7th, Bruak Obama accepted an award in Boston. The former president received and award for Profile in Courage Award at the John F. Kennedy Library. The article talks about Obama and his feelings of the new healthcare law. Obama did not mention Trump at anytime, he did not want to talk about the president and his choices form the United States of America. This shows how Obama does not want to cause trouble. Comparing Trump and his Tweets to an president that sticks to facts rather then involving emotions shows a lot of who Bruak is. In the article Obama defends health care law threatened with repeal the author use of emotional appeal to persuade the reader to feel empathy for the congress men and woman who lost their chair while they fought for Obama care. Obama care was a healthcare offered to many who did not have any health care. This was a big issue to many who believed that all their taxes were being taken out of their pay check fro Obama care. Well although this may be true the government takes alot of takes that we don't know where they go. This is a real crises here in the "free country." The change of Obama and Trump has been clear, the separation of a country among the people has been significant. Former president Obama encourage congress to stop looking the other way when people need help.