A Balanced Approach Is the Only Approach - Assignment Example

Eisa Alsaygh A01353714 Persuasive Research Essay (Workshop Reducing the Deficit: A Balanced Approach is the Only Approach Congress is reconveningeven as this is being written to attempt to resolve a fiscal crisis that will occur in early 2013, brought on by the coincidental expiration of the Bush era tax cuts and automatic spending cuts implemented by congress as part of the 2011 debt deal. In many ways people see this issue in a limited light: congress passed a foolish law as part of the debt deal in 2011, and think that this will simply be a matter that lasts for the next few weeks, or maybe a little bit after that if somehow congress and the president decide to go over the so called ‘fiscal cliff’ into 2013. However, this conflict is about much more than that: it is the fundamental question of who should be paying for deficit reduction, and the answer to that question will have long lasting implications. Those on the left and those on the right fundamentally disagree about how to pay for deficit reduction, with the right saying spending cuts, the left saying taxes. In this particular issue, the left is right. Based on the history of the economic relationship between tax rates and economic growth, ethical considerations regarding social mobility and who is more able to afford to help pay down the debt, and social considerations of the consequences of cutting vital social programs, cutting the deficit must involve raising taxes on the wealthy. Background: Many on the right advocate for deficit reduction to be paid for almost entirely by cutting spending – and this means cutting the social safety net, which makes up the vast majority of government spending. Those on the left want to pay for much more of deficit reduction through raising taxes, especially on the wealthy, to avoid cutting spending on those social programs. For many Americans in the middle, this might seem like something of an academic argument: most middle class Americans don’t receive extensive government support from the safety net, do they make enough money to care about the tax rate for the super-wealthy. This, however, is not the case: ask yourself, right now, if you are more likely to jump up to making over $250,000 a year in the next four 10 years, or if you are more likely to lose your job, have a health issue, or have some other situation in which you’ll need to temporarily rely on the social safety net. Unfortunately, life does not always work out, which is why the safety net exists. Statistics show that upwards mobility is at historic lows (), yet with an unstable economy, many people suffer calamities that they cannot expect and are thrown suddenly into a terrible economic situation. For instance, many parents who took out loans to help pay for their children’s school have since lost their jobs in the recession: almost 10% of education loans granted to people over 60 are at least 90 days behind in their payments (Lewin). In many cases, these parents now have to live with their children, the very ones they wanted to support by giving them education loans (Lewin). Economic considerations: One of the most important aspects of this debate is what, if any, effect raising taxes on the wealthy has on the economy as a whole. Conservative economic theory indicates that when a tax rate is raised, people have less incentive to make money, and thus economic growth slows or stagnates. This is a persuasive message in some ways – it certainly seems to make sense on a gut check level: would one want to work harder if one got to keep 75% of the income or 85%? Clearly 85%. Conservatives thus argue that it would be worse for everyone if the top income rate is raised, because rich people are the people who invest and create jobs, and thus those in lower income brackets would also suffer from slower economic growth. The problem, however, is that this does not seem to be the case when one looks at the history of tax rates and growth in America. A recent report by the non-partisan congressional research office has compared top tax rates to the rate of economic growth and found some surprising things. The times with the highest rate of growth seem to be the times when top income brackets are the highest, not the lowest. For instance, in the era immediately after the Second World War, income taxes for top earners were the highest in American history, but the economy was also growing incredibly quickly. In the 1980s, when taxes were lowered, the economy slowed, but it picked up again in the 1990s, when top taxes were again raised, only to wallow again in the 2000s when the Bush Era tax cuts took effect. Clearly there is not actually the relationship between taxes and growth that conservative economists argue. Peer Review (Workshop 2) The central tenet of this paper is the idea that carrying a concealed hand-gun does not, in point of fact, put the owner of that handgun at greater risk when confronted with a mugger, that carrying a concealed weapon actually makes someone safer when confronted with violent crime. There is a central problem with this paper, however, is that none of the following arguments or topics actually relate directly to the central thesis. After arguing that carrying a concealed hand gun makes one safer when confronted by a thug, the paper moves on to discussing concealed carry laws (without directly relating those to safety), before moving on to arguing that people who carry concealed weapons with permits are law abiding (again, not directly related to safety). The only argument actually related to safety is in the conclusion, when the paper quotes John Stossel without using a source to say that he says that maximum-security felons avoid neighborhoods where they perceive a large number of gun owners. 2. As mentioned above, little evidence is given directly in support of the thesis. There are two concrete pieces of evidence given: the number of permit carriers in the country (which the author uses to counter the notion that there would be lots of violence if there were a lot of gun carriers). This doesn’t logically link to the argument, however, because a) the number given is very small compared to the population of the US and b) the author doesn’t try to argue that gun violence is rare. The second piece of evidence is an assertion by 20/20 host John Stossel that maximum-security felons avoid areas that have gun ownership. 3. The author addressed the “so what” question to a fairly strong degree. The paper opens by referring to the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment – and obviously all Americans consider the Bill of Rights incredibly important. Furthermore, the author connects the idea of gun-ownership and gun rights to safety, which are obviously very important questions. However, the author also diminishes his own argument by saying that this should not be a question that is open to debate any more, as the Second Amendment is, according to him, cut and dry. 4. The argument is not well founded. The problem is that the thesis is about whether or not concealed carry gun laws make people safer or less safe, and none of the evidence directly connects to that. To make this better, the author should do something like comparing rates of gun deaths in places with concealed carry permits to places that don’t, or find out how many instances of concealed carry people defending themselves versus being harmed by their own weapons. The problem is, however, much of this evidence would go against the thesis – more gun owners are killed by their own weapons than defend themselves with them, and the rate of law-breaking among people with concealed carry permits is actually higher than the general population. 5. The language seems fairly appropriate, though the author does treat many open questions as closed. 6. The argument is not fair and balanced. Though the author makes an attempt to present the opposing view in a quote by Al Sharpton, he effectively sets up a straw man in doing so. Furthermore, the author pays no credence to evidence or statistics that go against his own point. 7. The author does not seem to address a specific audience. It certainly seems targeted at Americans, but other than that it is difficult to determine a more specific audience. 8. The author does not seem to be aware that some people reading this might not already agree with him – he needs to account more for opposing points of view, or be dismissed by people who do not already share his own opinions. 9. The article caused me to be a bit dismissive of the argument because of the almost total lack of evidence given, and the fact that the evidence did not relate to the central question of safety. As someone who knows some of the statistics for gun violence among concealed carry permits, I know some of his assertions are wrong. He needs to do a better job pulling up real statistics and using the, to head of criticism and hone his argument more fully, because right now it is not likely to convince someone who already disagrees with him. (Second Peer Paper) Reducing the Deficit: A Balanced Approach is the Only Approach This paper seeks to discuss the topic about reduction of the trade deficit, which the writer says is a necessity in early 2013. In this paper, the basic premise revolves around the choices available for the United States’ government in reducing this deficit. Accordingly, the writer puts across the point that, when attempting to reduce these fiscal deficits, the government United State should do so, not only by effecting spending cuts to programs that are deemed unnecessary, reductions in services that are already too heavily utilized such as Medicaid, and the restructuring of entitlements, but also by raising taxes. Accordingly, the government must also attempt to raise more revenue via an increase in taxation levels for the highest earning Americans as part of any reduction in the fiscal deficit. The paper is subject to the occasional drift from its central tenets, especially in its attempt to discredit the republican fiscal policies. The writer could have taken a more direct approach in connecting the stated fiscal policies to his thesis. He could also have attempted to place this in his thesis, adding that the evidence points to the fact that the policies championed by the conservatives will have a limited impact on spurring the economy. Therefore, this policy should have been appended to the thesis rather than later on. The writer could have used some more evidence in support of his thesis. With regard to this point, part of the problem lies in the abstract nature of the thesis in relation to the discussed topics. One instance of this is the attempt by the writer to talk, about basic economic ideas, to support his discussion. For example, the writer discusses the point concerning the validity of the conservative’s idea to decrease the level of taxation. Apparently, according to the writer, Republican economic fiscal policies show that when taxation rates are increased, the American citizen becomes less motivated to take up entrepreneurship, in turn causing stagnation or slowing down of economic growth. While the writer does provides a strong argument as to the invalid nature of this argument, discrediting the argument for retaining low levels of high income tax, he does not put across his point that the revenues need to be increased. However, on the positive side, the supporting evidence that he uses; newspaper articles retrieved from believable sources, coupled to a congressional budget office report, are trustworthy and help to prop up his argument. In the course of putting across his argument, the writer must have included a lot of resources into attempting to address what will happen, i.e., the “so what” question. He placed particular emphasis on this point, indicating that many services that were up for cuts as part of the deal were aimed at the social safety net. He contends that the social safety net was in all American’s interest since any citizen was vulnerable to situations that could call for its activation. While this explanation may have been redundant to those who were already of the idea supporting retention of the social safety net, it may have been of use to those who had not considered the likely effects of slashing funds to this vital service. While the writer’s argument is well grounded in evidence, it would have been compelling if he had included some information in regard to the underlying economic structures in his thesis statement. This would have connected the essay in a more explicit manner to the thesis. As far as the evidence went, this was one of the essay’s strong points with citations that ranged, from government authored documents, to expertly authored newspaper sources. However, it would have been better if the writer had integrated additional statistics in support of his argument, instead of simply reporting the contents of the report, which could force the reader to look up the report as a means of verifying the information. The paper carries an appropriate tone throughout its course and has a satisfactory professional feel about it. This, in turn, turns the reader on to the logical purpose of the writer’s work. As concerns, the balance of the paper, the essay was fairly balanced. The writer’s use of forceful and clear language to articulate his competing claims is refreshing and interesting, fully making a connection between the conservative economic policies and their cognitive appeal to the American citizen, who make many of them believe in the promise they hold. The writer takes this in stride and makes a counterargument, which takes this argument as reasonable before going on to refute it by integrating additional data that point towards the fact that this is not so. In fact, he points out that this direction is counter-intuitive and that Republican economic policy actually has a dismal success rate in recent United States history. However, the writer does not make any spirited attempt to explain any other factors, with the exception of tax rates, that could have an incremental effect on the economy even in the event that taxes do remain high. The writer seems to be directing his argument at the American middle class. The writer also shows awareness with regard to his potential readers, especially via the specific reasons he gives as to why middle class United States citizens should care about the way the fiscal deficit is handled. Instead of focusing on the importance of the social safety net to the lower class poor in the United States, which would have been extra attractive to the lower class American reader. On the other hand, even the economic benefits that higher taxes would bring to Americans, which would appeal to the upper class US citizen, he focuses on a situation where everyone would be affected by cutting funding to the social safety net with a specific bias towards the middle class. The argument that the writer utilized was not connective enough to me on an emotional level. The essay did show a high level of logical coherence, although, the few examples concerning how negatively impacting the loss of the social safety net would be did not do enough to elicit any significant emotional reaction. While he does make a salient point pertaining to the idea that, it is more likely that one will lose their job in the next ten years compared to jumping up pay grades to, say, two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, he could have done more to appeal to the reader’s emotions. This is through, for example, giving hard facts comparing upward job mobility and job loss to prove the folly of cutting the social safety net. In spite of this, the essay did enough to convince the person who reads as to the reliability of its points. Works Cited Lewin, Tamar. "DEGREES OF DEBT; Some Parents, Shouldering Student Loans, Fall on Tough Times." The New York Times. The New York Times, 12 Nov. 2012. Web. 14 Nov. 2012. www.nytimes.com/2012/11/12/business/some-parents-shouldering-student-loans-fall-on-tough-times.html?pagewanted=all Hungford, Thomas. “Taxes and the Economy: An Economic Analysis of the Top Tax Rates Since 1945” Congressional Research Office. 2012. www.graphics8.nytimes.com/news/business/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf> Read More

In many cases, these parents now have to live with their children, the very ones they wanted to support by giving them education loans (Lewin). Economic considerations: One of the most important aspects of this debate is what, if any, effect raising taxes on the wealthy has on the economy as a whole. Conservative economic theory indicates that when a tax rate is raised, people have less incentive to make money, and thus economic growth slows or stagnates. This is a persuasive message in some ways – it certainly seems to make sense on a gut check level: would one want to work harder if one got to keep 75% of the income or 85%?

Clearly 85%. Conservatives thus argue that it would be worse for everyone if the top income rate is raised, because rich people are the people who invest and create jobs, and thus those in lower income brackets would also suffer from slower economic growth. The problem, however, is that this does not seem to be the case when one looks at the history of tax rates and growth in America. A recent report by the non-partisan congressional research office has compared top tax rates to the rate of economic growth and found some surprising things.

The times with the highest rate of growth seem to be the times when top income brackets are the highest, not the lowest. For instance, in the era immediately after the Second World War, income taxes for top earners were the highest in American history, but the economy was also growing incredibly quickly. In the 1980s, when taxes were lowered, the economy slowed, but it picked up again in the 1990s, when top taxes were again raised, only to wallow again in the 2000s when the Bush Era tax cuts took effect.

Clearly there is not actually the relationship between taxes and growth that conservative economists argue. Peer Review (Workshop 2) The central tenet of this paper is the idea that carrying a concealed hand-gun does not, in point of fact, put the owner of that handgun at greater risk when confronted with a mugger, that carrying a concealed weapon actually makes someone safer when confronted with violent crime. There is a central problem with this paper, however, is that none of the following arguments or topics actually relate directly to the central thesis.

After arguing that carrying a concealed hand gun makes one safer when confronted by a thug, the paper moves on to discussing concealed carry laws (without directly relating those to safety), before moving on to arguing that people who carry concealed weapons with permits are law abiding (again, not directly related to safety). The only argument actually related to safety is in the conclusion, when the paper quotes John Stossel without using a source to say that he says that maximum-security felons avoid neighborhoods where they perceive a large number of gun owners. 2. As mentioned above, little evidence is given directly in support of the thesis.

There are two concrete pieces of evidence given: the number of permit carriers in the country (which the author uses to counter the notion that there would be lots of violence if there were a lot of gun carriers). This doesn’t logically link to the argument, however, because a) the number given is very small compared to the population of the US and b) the author doesn’t try to argue that gun violence is rare. The second piece of evidence is an assertion by 20/20 host John Stossel that maximum-security felons avoid areas that have gun ownership. 3. The author addressed the “so what” question to a fairly strong degree.

The paper opens by referring to the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment – and obviously all Americans consider the Bill of Rights incredibly important. Furthermore, the author connects the idea of gun-ownership and gun rights to safety, which are obviously very important questions. However, the author also diminishes his own argument by saying that this should not be a question that is open to debate any more, as the Second Amendment is, according to him, cut and dry. 4.

Read More