A new well informed 21st century citizen

     My definition of a well informed citizen was very basic; forms ideas, assesses media, is a citizen of the united states of america. My new definition includes the facts of government structure, knowledge of law, and internet prowess. So here goes, a well  informed citizen is someone who not only can look into media and form an opinion from it, they are able to tell you the exactly how something is affected and by which branch of the government (judicial, executive, legislative), they can easily drop into a conversation of what is right and wrong because they know the law and constitution, and they are able to easily navigate the internet because let's face it America runs on the internet. The internet is where we buy our clothes, search out our entertainment, it's wear we learn about topics that really interest us (it isn't limited like a book or the real world), it's where you are reading this, and if you can't use it properly then you aren't a well informed citizen.

Gov. Issue: What economic practice is best

     What economic practice is more prevalent to the survival of America, a country in a new growing world market, which side of the economy will get the job done, Keynesian or classical. The two polar economic (actually macroeconomic but it's not worth going into) practices, are Keynesian economics which trusts that lowering wages will lower prices, and the other practice is Supply side economics and it relies on government action. Historically, the most apparent example of how well our country is being run we look to our President, so they will act as examples to show which is better-Keynesian or supply-side.
     To start us off, Richard Nixon declared to the public "We are all Keynesian now" which meant that he was going to start saving income and increased taxes for two quarters until he would finally start stimulating the government with "bailouts". The economy was in a full turn around until he made it nose dive after that whole Watergate fiasco. Point is that he was making America money, he had restored trade with most of our Asian trade partners, China and Taiwan. You might think that Keynesian is the best option for America, but that is only one special case for how that kind of economy is good.
     Second, while he hasn't really come out as one, he has made many economic decisions based on what appears to be Keynesian economics. President Barack Obama has made strides in the economic field and no one has made heads or tails of the actual practice he is committed to. He has made a drive to reduce gov. spending, increase minimum wage, and bail out businesses and the country which put us a little bit more in debt but it also allows for an era of increased economic growth. Those laws or bills he has had passed recently have given the population ample space to start expanding businesses and increase our marginal propensity to consume(spend on what we want), the only issue is that since the recession outlook is bleak and financial security is the main pill to swallow. While today that seems all fine and Keynesian, 40 or 50 years ago Obama would have a couple million less people to worry about and that would mean that these reforms or actions he has taken would label him as a Reaganomic acolyte. Allow me to explain with a brief paragraph on Reagan's practices.
     President Ronald Reagan is the flagship example used to represent Supply side economics, or as it was coined after he ran it- Reaganomics. He was one of the only other presidents to stop the decline of the economy, and he was the only one to make it start turning a profit so America could pay off debts. He rode a horse. His reign as emperor of our great nation and setting its economy included, what may sound familiar; decreased government spending, raised taxes and interest rates(prompting many to start saving money), and on top of all that the job market was still thriving and all that went on for almost two years before he: increased government spending to help big businesses, decreased the interest rates and taxes (so people would start spending again), and while he really didn't raise minimum wage he gave stimuli or tax cuts to those that did.
     Reagan had many Keynesian economic practices, but they only worked because of his supply side economics, during those first two years the government was making many cuts and pumping money into different organizations trying to save the country, it didn't work. Used correctly either one can save the economy but personally i believe that Reaganomics is the more appropriate practice to have in effect because, it stimulates the sub-economoy (where our money goes) which is in banks and the stock market and big businesses that provide jobs to thousands. It prompts us to save at points and get back to spending at others. I do believe that the president should at least be running a Keynesian amongst their advisers though, like Reagan had done.
   
   
Pictures:


Video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBrHkxqNT7s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

Cite: http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/02/29/keynesian-economics-goes-out-of-style-for-americans
http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/richardnixon
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/Reaganomics.html
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/07/22/fatal-flaws-of-keynesian-econo

Political parties

The political parties graphic shows that republicans and democrats both support unmarried sex, according to the graphic where it is shown in the support bubble on either side of the page. They both want strong communities built from their values, morals, and beliefs-which are all very different, and they also want the people in those communities to be strong economically, still in very vastly different ways. This insight can be clarified by viewing the graphic that they want economic freedom and free trade in America and they both appreciate a well defined home life and community to be based on  morals. Both parties wish for their voters and the population in general to grow into working adults so that the great A-train that is America can keep chugging along; this is proven when you look at the graphic because while both parties want their children to know different morals they all want those children to grow up and eventually become cash cows. And the most influential similarity I saw was in their choices of freedom or equality, they had varied definitions for each democrats like a level playing field and republicans like giving people a chance to succeed, and both of those reasons boil down to the same thing.

Budget Balancing

Why is it so hard to balance the budget? Think about trying to spin plates on sticks, now imagine having to juggle all of them stick and all, now imagine that the plates are sentient somehow and are able to heckle your spinning and juggling skills. To balance the budget you have to first understand how the economy works concerning small businesses and large corporations, also you'd have to know how passing a law saying company A can grow into a monopoly will affect all businesses in the same market in the first year and many years later. Finally you'd have to take into account moral devices and the effect balancing decisions will affect the different economic and social classes. Three examples of these problems that I personally ran into included: the cutting of certain military taxes that would box out my ability to cut other military programs down the road, second finding out that tax cuts for small businesses help out in many other departments cutting down the budget, while providing tax cuts or abolishing programs for large corporations gave a lot of economic support in the for a few giant problem areas in the short run. Lastly, it was insanely difficult to make the decisions like cutting school funding or federal green contracts even though it helped to save the economy and America as a whole.

Constitution: Most important principle

The U.S. Constitution has four main principles; federalism, checks and balances, limited government, and separation of powers and out of those four I think that limited government is the most important because it limits the government. Firstly it keeps the government from stepping all over their citizens, secondly it would work even without checks and balances and separation of powers already doing their parts to limit the government. Finally, without this monopolies would still be around and the economy would come to an even more horrible crash than it already has, and nobody really wants that.

Is the interweb good for people

The most common way to find and read information is from a news station powered internet site, not only that but it's easy to navigate and is a simple way for the populous to keep in the loop, so yes the Internet is good for people especially news on the internet. Without the internet I;m sure that most of America, scratch that most of the world, wouldn't know half the things they know today about what is happening thousands of miles away in the world. As an example I would have had no inkling of a notion as to what was going on in Egypt last year without the internet media there to notify me. The ever-growing news  and media outlets on the internet are great for america because they keep us with the title of global powerhouse, because as a country we are able to know what is going on and can decide as a country if something is right or wrong. Seriously how many riots or protests have there been in opposition to or of the things the government does, in the end the internet media is jsut what america needs and it should keep growing further for the US population to have prosperity.

Too many or too few rights

Through the subjects covered in my government class I have come to realize that as Americans, we have entirely too few rights. Sure the constitution and all the amendments cover us or catch us like the safety net it's supposed to be, but reviewing many cases the supreme court makes so many ruling around the amendments just to protect the public. This means that we are horribly overwhelmed by the chinks in our proverbial armor, letting us be subjugated to illegal searches or false accusations. Like the probable cause cases where the man was falsely accused and then illegally searched because the police dog smelt drugs, Americans should have the right to defend themselves on the spot. Also the case where the group of youths were smoking some pot and could be charged for that but they should not have had their vehicle searched, the government run juggernauts meant to protect are at play shoving their superiority in our powerless faces. The US population needs more rights or these atrocities will continue, I'm not saying smoking weed is okay, I'm saying that we should be able to say if something is right or wrong.

Advisering Romney

If I were a campaign adviser for Mr. Mitt Romney I would steer him toward addressing three major topics

Electoral college

The electoral college should be kept because by taking votes from big states and giving them to smaller states they level the playing field and give those small states a chance to have a say in what goes on in an election. Not only does it level the playing field for states they also do so for the candidates because they are forced to run and grab the majority electoral vote of 270, a 3/4 majority, in only about half the states. Finally the main reason is because it save the planet, by taking many states out of the campaign trail they are saving candidates the trouble of wasting gas to travel out west and by doing so saving the planet from harmful greenhouse gases. But seriously the main reason is because the Electoral College is constitutional and has been for maybe the past two centuries, so the amount of resistance that would need to be adhered to would be immeasurable and in the end would not be worth all the time and money it would take to get rid of the electoral college.

Improved elections

The election process in the united states is broken and inefficient in the way it elects the president and I'm absolutely sure that there are at least three legit ways to improve  this system. First off the obvious problem is the electoral college so the three changes will  be made to the electoral college. The way to give equality to small states is not to give all the votes from the big states to the small states but to divide the US into voting sectors so that bigger and smaller states are grouped together. The candidates would have to campaign in all the states and win over the majority of each sector to gain the electoral votes from that sector, this solves the whole issue of candidates only campaigning in the rare states where they are able to control the most electoral votes. The final change that should be made to the electoral college so that voting can be fixed is, to provide two voting coexisting voting options. The voters would have to provide their votes for the electoral college, which would work better, but would also have to provide their vote into the popular vote which would be stacked up against the electoral college findings. That way people will see that voting has improved with the electoral college and they should stop whining about it.

Here is an example of what the divisions might look like, probably would have to be a little more split in some places but pretty much what i was talking about.

Constitution: Most important principle

The U.S. Constitution has four main principles; federalism, checks and balances, limited government, and separation of powers and out of those four I think that limited government is the most important because it limits the government. Firstly it keeps the government from stepping all over their citizens, secondly it would work even without checks and balances and separation of powers already doing their parts to limit the government because it sets restrictions on what they are able to do to the american population. Finally limited government acts as a leash, keeping the government from running wild and taking whatever they want.

Constitution vs. Declaration of Independence

The Constitution and Declaration both blatantly outline and insure the rights given to american citizens, but more specifically how the citizens are treated by the government is a definitive likeness between the two documents. Amendment 10 of the US Constitution says that if there are powers unclaimed by the government or the state, that the citizens may claim the power and use it to their benefit. And the Declaration of Independence has a portion in the Preamble saying that the government would promote the general welfare of the populous, or in other words it would act in a just fashion and would act fairly on behalf of american citizens. Finally, Amendment 19 states that each and every citizen has the right to vote regardless of race or sex, as long as they were of age, and frankly that seems quite fair in regards to how a government would treat its peoples fairly.

Def of a well informed 21st century citizen

A well informed 21st century citizen is a person who has access to many sources of media; internet, television, newspaper, etc. They will be able to not only read and information provided by these media sources, but they will be able to comprehend and form an opinion of their own, based on their beliefs and lifestyle. Along with being able to form an individual idea on what is going on in the world, on whatever scale being addressed, a well informed citizen has to be open minded and open to ideas and also must be a citizen.