Future of Democracy

 Is there a future for Democracy? I believe that there must be some glimpse of hope that democracy still exists, and that even though we as a nation have stumbled away from it, that somehow we will find our way back. To find our way back citizens must forcibly get the government to understand that they need to put aside their differences and work on a comprimise. No more He said She said way of thinking. No more belittling, badgering, or being condescending. Is this possible. Again, we have come a very long way from where this country started over two hundred years ago. We announced our independence in 1776, outlawed slavery in 1865, women became eligible to vote in 1896, and the civil rights movement ended in 1954 which in turn ended segregation.

Throughout our countries history the american citizen has accomplished many feets. We need to take back our country. No longer should the rich be able to say who, what, when, where, how, and why things happen. Corporations should not be able to rule the nation or the world.  

The alternative to democracy is dictatorship, and I don't believe after over two hundred years that the American citizen can go back to this type of government. Many governments have fallen throughout history because of dictatorships such as Rome, Egypt, Germany, Britain, and Russia. The American people adopted the constitution for a reason.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." (Retrieved on April 21, 2011, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html )These first couple of lines taken from the United States constitution have meaning, and we need to relearn what that meaning is. How about Patrick Henry's famous words of "Give me liberty or Give me Death"

Complacency is not the answer, standing up for what is right and decent is the answer. Democracy is more than a word, it is a way of life. However, the rich and the powerful should not be able to dictate what our country should or should not do. Democracies future depends on the welfare of the whole not the few.

Is there a future for democracy, I sure hope so!!!

What is the process to develop an economic policy that provides services and sustainability?

What is the process to develop an economic policy that provides services and sustainability? Is sustainability really ever going to happen? Can we sustain an economic policy that everyone in the government will agree upon including the citizens of the world. In the last few weeks the congress has been arguing over the budget, to the point where according to the news that we were very close to a governmental shutdown. The democrats nor the republicans can agree on what is best for a country. This morning on my way to work the radio was discussing Obama's plan to cut over $35 billion dollars of spending from the budget. In my eyes it needs to be much more than that.  Truth be told the money should be cut from anything and everything except for education or the welfare programs. Why can't our government take pay cuts like everyone else in the country? Is it really necessary for us to have these big costly state dinners and such? The money that is charged per person to go to one of these events should be paid against our deficit.



When it comes to discovering the process which will provide services for economic policy and sustainability, the only process is for the government to listen to its people and to sit down and agree upon what is best for the nation and stop pussy footen around what needs to be done. We can have all the comittees in the world, but if we can't see past the end of our noses about what is really going on in the world then no process will ever work!

Welfare: How does a government facilitate comprehensive care for its constituents without sacrificing equity?

According to the U.S. Census bureau reported on November 4, 2010, the average household median income was $52, 029 for 2008 and the amount of the American public that was considered at or below the poverty line was a mere 13.2% (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html) From 2008 to 2009 the amount of American's grew from 13.2 % to 14.3%. (http://www.mybanktracker.com/bank-news/2010/09/20/poverty-rate)

New figures have not been released, with the U.S. Census Bureau completing census reports only every two years. However these figures prove that the American citizens are feeling the pain. With the average household median income level only being $50,000, imagine what size family could be living on such little money.  Imagine the typical expenses such as; rent or mortgage, food, gas, car payments, insurance (health, life, car), utilities, phone, clothing, etc. The majority of America might not be below poverty level but they are at or slightly above.

Can the government facilitate comprehensive care for it's constituents without sacrificing equity? Recently, the new reform act of 2011 was passed in March. This reform act like the reform act of 1996 put even stricter income guidelines and rules on citizens receiving welfare program help. According to the State Column on March 25, 2011 the new reform act will help food stamp recipients become less independent upon the governments assistance and get back to work. (http://www.thestatecolumn/state_politics/new-jersey/rep-scott-garrett)

Are these stricter guidelines actually helping? With our economy in recession and near depression in my mind, the American citizen needs help. The rich are getting the tax breaks, while the middle to lower class have not received any true assistance. We are bailing out car companies, banks, and even the stock markets. Blue collar jobs are on decline leaving millions of people without work. Numerous amounts of companies laid off thousands of people leaving our national unemployment level at the highest it has been since the Great Depression.  So to answer the question can the government provide comprehensive care without sacrificing equity? The answer to this question is of course not. But if the government is willing to give millions to bail out banks, car companies, etc. then maybe they should take a pay cut to help the people that are suffering so dearly. Maybe just maybe the money that they cut from their own salaries will also help to pay down our deficit.

Foreign Policy

Foreign policy seems to be really big business for the United States as a whole. I can't say that I agree with the methods that are used to promote foreign policy, or that I agree with what happens to the citizens of other countries that are affected by our foreign policy. I have read numerous articles and listened to the news regarding foreign policy. Currently we are in the middle of what I consider two wars over in the middle east. Why exactly are we there? Is it because we want to help these other nations form a democracy? Or perhaps that we want to nip terrorism in the butt, because of what happened on September 11, 2001?

I think that these are underlying truths. However, after listening to the news and then reading the many different articles, and even having discussions with friends, family, and even complete strangers I think the truth lies in money and power.

I have learned over the last several weeks in my college course that money and power are politics. But do we ever think about the lives that we are changing or perhaps ending. Is it really worth the pain and agony that these other countries are experiencing just so that America can get whatever the upper hand is?

Foreign policy deals with economics, military, industrial, farming, and above all what can the United States get out of whatever country we are trying to get it from.  The United States has laws regarding the age and hours that a person can work and even a minimum wage that can be paid to an individual. We have laws against child labor. Jobs are being sent over seas because corporations and big business stand to make a higher profit because labor and even materials are cheaper in other countries than our own. Their are children working in these plants making little to no money and working in absolutely horrible conditions. Citizens of other countries are making less money than what they could make here in the United States working for McDonald's or Wendy's. The conditions in which they are working are horrible, and if they were working here in the United States these factories and businesses would be closed down by the labor board or even OSHA.

We need to step up to the plate and prove that what we do here at home is just as good as what we do overseas. If we can't than we shouldn't be there at ALL!!!!

 I think that this image that I found explains it all. What are your thoughts?

What role do judges and the judicial system play in supporting freedom?

Freedom is not the only thing that we look to our judicial system to help with. For years studies have been done to find out if children's vaccines have strong side affects to certain types of children. Scientific studies have proven that some children not all are affected adversly to vaccines. Vaccines such as DTAP (Diptheria, Tetnus, and Pertusis), MMR (Measles, Mumps, and Rubella), and even Varicella (Chicken Pox) have been linked to affects such as seizures, autism, and other disabilities.

So freedom is not the only thing that we look to the government and the judicial system for. We also look for protection. The Supreme Court ruled on February 22, 2011 that families whose children have suffered some adverse affect from a childhood vaccine cannot seek retribution from the pharmaceutical companies.  According to an article published by CBS News on February 23, 2011, "the court voted 6-2 against parents of a child who sued the drug maker Wyeth in the Pennsylvania state court, for diabilitating seizures their daugter has suffered for 19 years caused by the DTAP vaccine."  (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20034998-504083.html).

According to another article published by Homeland Security Newswire, on March 15, 2011 the ruling is prohibiting parents to seek strickter guidelines on the production of vaccines. As it stands now in the 1986 Childhood Vaccine Act, the Food and Drug Administration sets the guidelines for drug manufacturers. The guidelines are not strict enough. The law that was passed in 1986 by congress provided the Drug companies protection from parents legal cases.

We need our court systems to help us not throw our concerns out the window.

How does the U S Congress as it exists and in its current structure support and or limit authentic representation

I do not believe that congress can represent the people authentically. Why may you ask? In our current society there is prejudice, racism, gender inequality, class inequality, and minority groups who are not properly represented. 

The Senate and the House of Representatives was originally created to represent the citizens from all walks of life equally and without prejudice. Minorities, women, men, and all manners of classes are supposed to have equal representation. According to an article that I found posted on March 9, 2011 from CBS News, "sixty percent of Senate freshman and more than 40 percent of House freshman are millionaires. This was reported by an analysis done by the Center for Responsive Politics."(http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20041350-503544.html)

With knowing this simple fact how is our congress authentically representing the people? According to The Politics of Power on page 182, "blacks comprise 12 percent of the electorate occupying 7 percent of the seats in the house and one percent of all senate seats. Women make up 52 percent of all eligible voters and they make up 14 percent of the seats in the house and held about 16 percent of the seats in the senate. Hispanics are 8 percent of the electorate occupying 3 percent of the seats in the house and 2 percent of all senate seats."

With these two stimulating facts authentic representation is extremely far fetched. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Classes will stay having an enormous range of inequality. As of this minute the working class has never been represented.

In what ways does the US Presidency support and limit the formation of an ideal democracy

 First what is a democracy? According to the Webster's Dictionary definition of a democracy is a government sponsored by the people, where the majority rule and the highest office is usually run through representatives of the people.

Okay, knowing that, what is the definition of a republic? The answer to this question is according to the Webster's Dictionary is that it is a government that has an executive which is not a monarch and is usually called a president and where citizens have the right to vote.

I have another one for you, what about capitalism or perhaps even socialism? Capitalism is where land and wealth are with the people. Socialism is a government in which the people own and control the economic systems. 

Knowing these definitions we can now try to answer our first question; does the US presidency support or limit the formation of a democracy. Well, the United States is actually a combination of a democracy, a republic, capitalistic, and socialistic. With this the president does both support and limit the formation of an ideal democracy. The president of the United States is the only representative that is voted upon by all of the citizens of the nation. However, with that said depending upon how the the Congress is split, meaning if the majority of the congress is democratic as it was before our mid-term elections back in November of 2010, the president has more chances in getting his specific agendas because President Obama was in specific terms the head of the Democratic Party. As our Congress stands now it provides more checks and balances to prevent such overuse of power.

The president of the United States is supposed to listen to his/her constituents and help provide protection, equality, and the rights given by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.