Political Parties (For GOV Project)

What are political parties and what are the two main political parties in the United States?

Political Party:
A Political party is a group of people with common views about political beliefs that come together to work with one another to promote and put those common beliefs into actions. In the United States, political parties often promote their members and give them government official positions to get them to do things with the interest of their political parties. Examples of those government official positions are Senators (work in the senate), Representative for the House of Representative, and even the President.

Two main political parties in the United States.
The two main political parties in the United States are the Democratic and the Republican Parties. Even though there are different political ideology in the Democratic Parties, the people in the Democratic Party generally believe the government should play a greater role in the insurance of its people's welfare. What that mean is there should be more regulation on company, higher taxes on big corporate and programs that work for the middle and working class. This is the same for the Republican Party. Inside the Republican Party, there are also different group with different political ideology, but generally, they believe in the old way and smaller government. They believe that there should be less government regulation for companies/corporates, lower taxes and they don't often promote social changes like gay marriage and abortion.

With the two main parties co-exist in the United States, which one best shape the economy?
When looking at the employment rate between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party from the year 2000 to 2016, the Democratic Party undoubtedly proved to the the party that best shape the economy.

President George W. Bush, a member of the Republican Party, served as president from 2001 to 2009. During his term, millions of jobs were lost and not much were gained. For example, in 2007, there were 1,147,000 new jobs but than in the last 2 years of his presidency (2008-2009), the amount of jobs decreased by 8,635,000. This large decrease in jobs lost out numbered the number of jobs gained. But when compare this number to the one in Obama's presidency from 2009 to 2017, the amount new jobs consistently increase each year. The consistent increase of jobs greatly improved the economy because with more/new  jobs open up for people, they will have more opportunity to work and earn money and use that money to buy food, clothing and other items. And this is important because "consumer spending is the single most important driving force of the U.S. economy... if everyone stopped spending. Businesses would eventually go bankrupt and lay off workers. The government would then have no one to tax." (Amadeo, 2018) So with people now able to work and earn money, they are now able to use that money and spend it on the supply that they need and keep the economy running. Because of the Republican Party's inability to provide more jobs for the American people as shown the in the presidency term of George W. Bush, the Republican Party is sure isn't the party that is going to provide the American people what we need to earn money and keep America's economy going toward the positive direction. But on the other hand, the Democratic Party consistently open up more jobs for the people, which in term provide them the opportunity to work and earn money which they can spend on goods from businesses, and this will then help the economy going forward. Because of this, the democratic is the one that will better shape the economy.

Another example that further prove the democratic party better shape the economy is the rise in GDP.

                                                These data are used to from the bar graphs.
GDP stand for gross domestic product. "For the United States, GDP usually means the dollar-amount value of all purchased goods and services over the course of one year." (Smith, 2018) So If you buy a roast chicken for $10, GDP increases by $10.

In the graph above, the Democratic Party shows a really high GDP of 3.5.  This number is from adding all of the GDP from the years of the Presidents from the Democratic Party together and find its average. Because the number is really high, it proved that during the years of the Democratic Party winning the presidential elections, there must be a really high number of jobs available for the people. I said this because people earn money from working and they used that money on products. Every amount of those money from big to small are then added to the GDP. And by buying and spending their money, they are ultimately helping the U.S's economy by keeping the cycle of the producer and the consumer going.

But in the years of the Republican Party winning the presidential elections, their average GDP is 1.15 less than that of the Democratic Party. This must mean that during their presidential terms, they didn't open up as many jobs as the Democratic Party did. And because they didn't open up enough jobs for the people, the people therefore earned less money and have less money available to spend on products. This lower number in GDP ultimately lower the U.S's income.

The table represent a neutral data because they are taken from 6 Republican Presidents and 6 Democratic Presidents. So the same number of president is represented on both side.


                                                                   Cited Sources:

Smith, Lisa. “Does High GDP Mean Economic Prosperity?” Investopedia, Investopedia, 31 May 2018, www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/genuine-progress-indicator-gpi.asp.

“Believe It or Not! Democratic Presidents Manage the Economy Better Than Republicans.” Presidential Data 2016, presidentialdata.org/.

Interest Groups (For GOV Project)

                                            Interest groups

Guiding Questions

1.) What exactly is an interest group?

2.) what are some example of interest groups?

3.) what do they do and why?

An interest group is an organized group of individual that make policy-related appeals to government. To put it in a simpler language, they are the people that try to persuade government official to make and implement laws that they want. An individual who works for an interest group is called a lobbyist. A lobbyist tries to shape policies by giving government official especially those in Congress money in which they called "campaign contribution". The lobbyist also gathers information and write policy for those in Congress to make the lawmaking process faster and easier for those introducing it.

Even though interest groups are designed to help shape America for the better by focusing on a particular topic and work on that topic that they are interested in to better improve America, there can sometimes be groups that focused on personal gain instead of for the common good. For example, interest groups like Greenpeace focus on the improvement of the planet by working proposing laws to lawmaker to help keep this planet clean and healthy. But other interest groups might not do this, they might not focus on the common good but rather for their benefits. As long as they have the money, the data they need to give to the lawmaker, they can ask the lawmaker to propose any law they want. Because of an interest group's ability to influence the lawmaker by providing them the money in exchange for the law that interest group wants to make happen, there are both pros and cons in having interest groups.

What are some pros and cons of interest groups?         

Pros

• Focus on specific issue and work to improve it
• They help society improve by making changes that benefit large group of people
• Raise awareness about varieties of issues and problem in our society and the world.

Cons

• Some interest groups can have the potential to propose law with their personal interest as top priority rather for the common good
• Interest group have large impact on political officials especially the one that's responsible for voting on laws
• Interest groups often have large amount of money and they can use that money to influence political figures.

Example of interest groups:

• NRA (National Rifle Association)
• ACLU ( American Civil Liberties Union, It works through litigation, lobbying, and community empowerment
• Greenpeace

To get a clearer vision of what an interest group does, let's look at Greenpeace as an example.

I chose to do Greenpeace because I really like our environment and considering majoring in environments science in college. 

The ideological perspective of this interest group is moderately liberal and we could tell by looking at its goal of exposing "environmental crimes by people, companies and the governments." For it to be a far-left wing liberal, it needs to say something in the line of getting rid of the whole system and want a totally new different system where everything is about the people and the environment. But the group only talk about exposing the people and companies responsible for the environmental damage, therefore it's ideological perspective is moderately liberal.

Greenpeace is a non-governmental environmental organization with the interest of protecting the environment. In the artifact above, the organization divided their mission and purpose into 3 parts: Investigate, connect and act. These are so that the reader can get clear hints of what the organization is about and based on that the reader will determine whether or not to support the group.

Investigate

The organization tries to get people to join through their use of the rhetorical device of nosism by first stating that they "believe in the public's right to know," which in a sense is saying that they are fighting for our right. Second, by using the word "our" in the line of "about what's happening to our planet", suggest they are fighting for the planet that we're all living in which is for the common good. The organization's use of nosism indicates their goal of fighting for all of us, for our planet and therefore, by joining, people will help contribute to the common good of the planet. The organization also appeal to the audience's ethic and persuade them to join by promising to "expose environmental crimes and the people, companies, and governments that need to be held responsible." 

Connect

The interest group also show no clear of bias of which group of people they want to join their organization. They don't care where you come from, what color skin you are, the community you're in. "Greenpeace connects people from all over the globe. We bring together diverse perspectives, and help communities and individuals to come together." With the group showing no bias or reference about who can join the organization, they are ultimately promoting their organization by suggesting that it's a safe place for everyone and that they don't discriminate.

Act

The interest further promotes their organization through their use of diction by stating that they work together to stop the destruction of the environment through "peaceful direct action and creative communication." By using the word "peaceful" they are conveying the message that they will take actions through diplomatic ways like persuading the government official and general public to introduce and vote for laws that will get help the environment rather than through the use of force and riot. The organization's use of diction allows the reader or the person who wants to join the group to feel safe about their decision of contributing for the greater good and not feel terrible for joining the group that will cause riot and chaos for their belief.

Because of the organization's use of diction, ethos and unbiased interest, the purpose of this artifact appears to be promoting the growing concern for the environment and persuading people to join for the common interest of the planet.

An's political Ideology (For GOV Project)

My name is N, I'm 17-years old and I'm currently doing a project about my political belief and why I believe it.

I took a political test recently to identify my political belief and I turned out to be a Market Skeptic Republican. A Market Skeptic Republican is a person who believes the economic system is unfair and that big corporate make way too much money and rapidly getting rid of the smaller businesses. A Market Skeptic Republican also believe that poor people have it easy because the government provided them with everything they need without needing them to return the favors. These are just two of the many things a Market Skeptic Republican believe in but they are the most important factors on what determined a person to be a Market Skeptic Republican. They are also what I believe to be the flaws of America.

Differences between a Market Skeptic Republican and Other Republican.

Less Government Regulation
One political Ideology that is different from mine is the Core Conservative ideology of having less government regulation on corporates and businesses. Having fewer government regulations is the belief that is often from a Core Conservative because to them, government regulations are redundant because the free market is already self-regulating. What that means is "Goods and services that appeal to and please consumers will thrive, while those that do not will be rejected and fail." (Lehman, 2017) It is a common sense that the buyer will buy items that are in good quality and beneficial to them and not buy the items that are in bad quality. With the business selling those good quality items to its buyer, the business will gain profits and grow over time. But with the business that sells items that are not as useful, the consumers will not buy anything from them and they will be forced to shut down. Because the free market is able to self-regulate, laws and regulations imposed by the government are redundant and therefore should be eliminated.

On the other hand, Market Skeptic Republicans believe that are more than to only protect the market, they exist to also protect the consumer, the business, and protect the environment. Without government regulation on big companies, companies will get to do what they want and can potentially hurt and damage not only their employees but also the environment. According to Marc Davis, the author of the article Government Regulations: Do They Help Businesses? During the Global Financial Crisis that unfolded from 2007-2011, "too many publicly traded corporations have misstated earnings to maintain or boost the market price of their stock. They've violated immigration laws by hiring undocumented workers. They've broken environmental laws by illegally dumping wastes or emitting pollutants into the atmosphere or into rivers and lakes." To maintain the price of their stocks, not only do they violated the immigration laws by hiring undocumented workers but they also violated environmental laws by dumping wastes and pollutants into the environment. These wrongdoings are done with laws and regulations in place. Now imagine what would happened without these laws and regulations. Will the world be like it is now (with the environment still being polluted) or will it 3 times worst with pollution causing by the big corporates that are doing whatever day can to upkeep their stock price and how much money is going into their pocket? Even when there are regulations, corporates are still secretly having their ways around things. So without government regulations, things like employees and environmental right will only be worst since there are no regulation to put those corporates in check.

Lower Taxes 
 Another Core Conservative ideology that I and the general Market Skeptic Republican do not agree with is the belief that the government should lower corporate taxes on corporates. Core Conservative Republicans believe that cutting of taxes "lower taxes can increase incentives to work...lower income tax will encourage people to work longer hours and new people to enter the labor force. Lower corporation tax will encourage firms to invest in the country." (Tejvan, 2008) With the people getting less money taken out from their earning, they will feel more encouraged to work longer hours to make more money. With people now getting pay more (the amount they should get without income tax cut), they will work with higher proficiently level.

Market Skeptic Republican think differently about the out the come of lowering taxes on corporates. They believed that lowering taxes on big companies will lead to a decrease in funding for programs like the free and reduce lunch (the program that provides free lunch for students who are from low-income families), healthcare, and other programs that support/benefit the working and middle class. "The budget would cut more than $5 trillion from non-defense programs over the next decade (2019 through 2028).  Half of these cuts would likely come from programs that aid low- and moderate-income individuals and families." (Friedman and Kogan, 2018) If the tax cut were to be put in place, the price of everything would be higher to no longer affordable for low-income families. Programs that were put in place to help the working low-income families would receive less money.

• $2.1 trillion in cuts to health programs
• $923 billion in cuts to income security programs
• $231 billion in cuts to education and social service programs, 

Money that funds those program will decrease and decrease over time to the point where those program can no longer stay open and will be forced to shut down. After those programs are down, the middle and working class will be forced to pay for everything with the money they do not have. People will be driven to poverty have the rights that were given to them taken away. Because of the dangerous future of lowering taxes on big corporates, I do not agree a Republican's belief about the benefits of lowing taxes on corporates.

Has America made the changes needed to give blacks equal rights with whites?
According to the research from the Pew Research Center, only 61% of the Market Skeptic Republican believe that America did make the change needed while a 20% higher of 81% of the Core Conservative say yes to the statement. This proves that the general Market Skeptic Republican believe that America still need to make more changes to give blacks equal rights with whites while the Core Conservative Republican does not. When looking at the unemployment rate graph from the United States Department of Labor,

the unemployment rate for black and other races is much higher than that of white. But in general the unemployment rate for for every other races is higher than that of the white. But for now let's focus the statistics of black and white. In 2014, the unemployment rate for the 16+ year old black is 7.8% while the unemployment rate for 16+ year old white is 4.0%. This higher in 3.8% show how much less likely it is for a black person to get a job and be employ than that of a white person. You might think that I'm bias and that there are other factors that also contribute to the higher unemployment rate in black like for example, they might not have the degree needed to obtain a certain job or the education need. But in reality black people have been making huge progress in obtaining their education. "In 1968, only 54% of black Americans graduated high school while today 92% get a high school diploma." (Paul, 2018) and the "3,215,000 blacks in this country who have a bachelor’s degree...1,078,000 African Americans who have both a four-year college degree and a master’s degree...150,000 blacks hold a professional degree in fields such as law, business, and medicine...136,000 African Americans have obtained a doctorate." (The Journal of Black Education). This levels of education in black should have earned them the job they want want and lower their unemployment. But even when black people show huge increases in the number of black people earning high school diploma and college degrees, their unemployment rate is still a lot higher than that of the white.

 (United States Department of Labor)
These graphs and data show the hard lives and unfair disadvantage Black American are still living in, America still need to make changes to give blacks the equal rights and opportunities they deserved to make America the place of equal opportunities like it's said to be.

A similarity between a Market Skeptic Republican and a Core Conservative

Even though there are many differences between a Market Skeptic Republican and a Core Conservative, there is still similarity like whether or not America should open up its door to people around the world. From the graph above, 52% of the Core Conservative and 50% of the Market Skeptic Republican voted yes to the "If America is too open to people from all over the world, we risk losing identity as a nation". This close gap of 2% make sense because even though I, a Market Skeptic Republican, do not believe in the economic system (which is similar to those of liberal), I still do not believe America should have an open door on the immigration policy because if everyone from, for example, Mexico just come to America, America is just going to be another Mexico and no longer a place of diversity.

Another similarity between a Skeptic Republican and other republican like the core conservative is the belief that poor people have it easy and are advantage of social program created to help the low and middle class. "The federal government operates at least 69 programs...exclusively to poor and lower-income people. The benefits include cash, food, housing, medical care and social services." (Spalding, 2012) and "only two, the earned income tax credit and the additional child refundable credit, require recipients to actually work for their benefits." (Spalding, 2012) What is this essentially mean is that a person can not work and still receive the money and assistance need from the government. With the government handing them everything the need, there is no reason for them to work when they can just sit at home and relies on those programs to provide for them. This is promoting the U.S to become a culture of laziness and dependency where people relies on the government to give them what they ask for. without having to work in return. In 2018, the total US government spending on "welfare — federal, state, and local — was “guesstimated” to be $1,091 billion, including $642 billion for Medicaid, and $449 billion in other welfare." (Chantrill, 2018) This is a lot of money. With the people "abusing" these programs by not working, the U.S economy can only go down.

Where does my belief come from?
I think my belief came from my school and the environment I'm living in. At school, I was taught that a Republican is bad, the economic system only favored the rich and the poor suffered the most by my teachers and friends. At home and in my neighborhood, I often heard and observed people taking advantage of the free money given out by the government by refusing to work. With the government providing people who are without jobs and money the things they need, they will feel like they already have everything the needed and start getting accustomed to their jobless life and refusing to work.

Cited Source:

Lehman, Tom. “Six Arguments Against Government Regulations.” Capitalism.com - Be the Change, 19 May 2017, www.capitalism.com/six-arguments-government-regulations/. https://www.capitalism.com/six-arguments-government-regulations/

Pettinger, Tejvan. “Advantages of Tax Cuts.” Economics Essays, 1 Jan. 1970, econ.economicshelp.org/2008/01/advantages-of-tax-cuts.html. https://econ.economicshelp.org/2008/01/advantages-of-tax-cuts.html

Davis, Marc. “Government Regulations: Do They Help Businesses?” Investopedia, Investopedia, 19 Oct. 2018, www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/11/government-regulations.asp. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/11/government-regulations.asp

“Market Skeptic Republicans.” Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 23 Oct. 2017, www.people-press.org/2017/10/24/appendix-1-typology-group-profiles-2/app1_5/. http://www.people-press.org/2017/10/24/appendix-1-typology-group-profiles-2/app1_5/


Spalding, Matthew. “Why the U.S. Has a Culture of Dependency.” CNN, Cable News Network, 21 Sept. 2012, www.cnn.com/2012/09/21/opinion/spalding-welfare-state-dependency/index.html.

Chantrill, Christopher. “What Is the Spending on Welfare?” Government Spending in United States: Federal State Local for 1961 - Charts Tables History, 2018, www.usgovernmentspending.com/welfare_spending.

Kogan, Richard. “House GOP Budget Retains Tax Cuts for the Wealthy, Proposes Deep Program Cuts for Millions of Americans.” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 28 June 2018, www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/house-gop-budget-retains-tax-cuts-for-the-wealthy-proposes-deep-program-cuts.