I’m not entirely sure what topic that I am going to choose for my proposal essay. My major is management and I hope to come up with a good idea involving small business.
One idea that I have heard about involves decreasing the tax burden on small businesses. With a decreased tax on smaller companies owners would be more likely to start up businesses and thus give a small boost to the economy.
Many of the presidential campaigns center around talk of lowering or raising taxes and which taxes to do this to. In my proposal I hope to explain why taxes imposed on small businesses are slowing down the economy. I also hope to emphasize the importance maintaining small businesses in the United States. The essay will not be in opposition of large corporations, but will merely identify and explain the need for smaller companies.
One common topic that is an offshoot of this topic would be the anit-Walmart crusade many are part of. In the proposal I hope to separate my stance from the stance of those who have already taken that opinion.
With the lower tax revenue received by the government there will need to be changes made in spending policies. These policies will be discussed in detail throughout the paper.
To be honest I am far from an expert on taxation or small business, or for that matter the economy as a whole. Therefore my research will have to provide much of the evidence for me.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Common Sense
Thomas Paine's Common Sense could not have better summed up what early Americans thought about the Parliamentary government of England. Colonial Americans had to have all been under the same mentality of Paine or they never would have left England in the first place.
As far as his writing style goes, Paine's liberal use of capitalization really exenuates many of his points. In particular I noticed the term ELECT or some variation there of. I think this must have been one of the points that he wanted to make sure that he brought accross. With the use of that term he hoped to bring accross the important difference between the colonies and England. That is, they elected there government and the U.S. didn't. Therefore, the US is not to be subjects of England's tyrannical rule.
In addtion to the emphasis placed on ELECTION, Paine brought accross the emphasis of the tyrrancial rule of the KING. Liberty of the American people was really brought into question with his opinions. Were the American people really free is there was a king checking over them?
Common Sense is a historical document and a template for persuasive writing even today. Unlike many other historical documents, people today can still relate to the emotions that Paine evoked through his writing.
As far as his writing style goes, Paine's liberal use of capitalization really exenuates many of his points. In particular I noticed the term ELECT or some variation there of. I think this must have been one of the points that he wanted to make sure that he brought accross. With the use of that term he hoped to bring accross the important difference between the colonies and England. That is, they elected there government and the U.S. didn't. Therefore, the US is not to be subjects of England's tyrannical rule.
In addtion to the emphasis placed on ELECTION, Paine brought accross the emphasis of the tyrrancial rule of the KING. Liberty of the American people was really brought into question with his opinions. Were the American people really free is there was a king checking over them?
Common Sense is a historical document and a template for persuasive writing even today. Unlike many other historical documents, people today can still relate to the emotions that Paine evoked through his writing.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Spring Break '08
I may have had the most boring spring break of all time. I spent my spring break at home in beautiful Indianapolis, Indiana.
Although boring, my break may have been the most relaxing time I've had in years. There was one day that I had to wake up early, by early I mean ten-thirty. Every other day I woke up at around ten.
I did get a chance to catch up with some friends also. Luckily a lot of my friends' breaks coincided with mine. My friend Joe offered me a one day job working for his parents. I was reluctant to take (I didn't want to throw off laziness theme), but luckily I did and made $300.
Besides that, I went to a couple Butler games with friends. I love going to Hinkle to watch the games. There is so much history in that building, and the crowd noise there is deafening.
Well if you've read down to this point you can begin to realize how boring my break was.
Although boring, my break may have been the most relaxing time I've had in years. There was one day that I had to wake up early, by early I mean ten-thirty. Every other day I woke up at around ten.
I did get a chance to catch up with some friends also. Luckily a lot of my friends' breaks coincided with mine. My friend Joe offered me a one day job working for his parents. I was reluctant to take (I didn't want to throw off laziness theme), but luckily I did and made $300.
Besides that, I went to a couple Butler games with friends. I love going to Hinkle to watch the games. There is so much history in that building, and the crowd noise there is deafening.
Well if you've read down to this point you can begin to realize how boring my break was.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Universal Healthcare... Universal Problems
A popular notion sweeping across the political landscape of the United States is the need for some type of healthcare reform. Numerous politicians, predominately democratic, have called for a “universal” healthcare system. The term universal healthcare has mildly different meanings to different people. Generally speaking though, universal health care refers to “a government effort intended to extend health care coverage to all citizens, and sometimes permanent residents, of a governmental region.” These ideas were the same ideas shared by Senator Barak Obama in a speech given to the Families USA Conference in Washington D.C. on January 27, 2007.
Over the past few years an increasing number of politicians and citizens alike have shown interest in the government of the United States adopting a universal healthcare system. Movies such as SiCKO and other written propaganda have only bolstered this side of the argument. With the growing popularity of the argument, some presidential candidate’s have run with universal healthcare as a major component of their platform. Barak Obama supports this theory and is running under the basis that if he were to be elected he would institute such a policy.
A manuscript of the aforementioned speech is available at http://obama.senate.gov/
speech/070125-the_time_has_co/ . Obama’s pathos oriented speech has moved many people, but there are a some fundamental flaws not addressed in his speech. Being a charismatic leader is an important trait for a candidate, but voters must use their head instead of their heart. Interestingly, some in this country seem to vote based solely on pathos inspired speeches, forgetting the ethos aspect or lack there of. This is the flaw that I find in this speech. Barak Obama has nearly no experience in the healthcare industry, and has been a politician or working toward being a politician his entire adult life. Although there is a glaring lack of expertise behind his thoughts on healthcare, Obama clearly has consultants to aid him on his opinion. These consultants, however, are employed for one reason only, to sway the vote in favor of their employer.
A key component of Obama’s speech is his appeal to a less wealthy audience, who have virtually nothing to lose by a fundamental change in the healthcare system of this country. In particular, this speech was given to a group of members of Families USA. This organization is an influential healthcare lobbyist in Washington D.C. Obviously, Senator Obama would receive a warm reception from an audience comprised of such universal healthcare advocates. In addition to this audience, the manuscript was posted on Obama’s campaign website. Obama’s supporters, mainly democratic, are the primary audience of the website.
The greatest problem with the speech is that Obama acknowledges know adverse effects of his proposed legislation. The democratic audience, which the speech is geared toward, traditionally has been in favor of legislation aiding those less fortunate in society. This is where Obama’s use of pathos comes into play. While Obama regurgitates some numbers (that may or may not be true) given to him by his consultants, the overriding feel of the speech is that there is a great injustice in this country.
Nothing will rile voters into voting like an injustice against them, and the person promising to change this will reap the rewards. In actuality the president has little say in whether a universal healthcare system will be enacted. Actually, Obama has a greater influence in the Senate than he ever will as president. In the Senate, Obama can actually vote on such legislation.
Generally speaking, Obama’s speech was merely a ploy to receive votes, nothing more, nothing less. Candidates in both parties do this on a daily basis. They tell their contingent what they would like to hear, and in return they receive votes. Whether or not this legislation is ever passed into law is of no concern to me. I merely would like to point out the degree of pathos used in the campaigns of politicians across the country.
Over the past few years an increasing number of politicians and citizens alike have shown interest in the government of the United States adopting a universal healthcare system. Movies such as SiCKO and other written propaganda have only bolstered this side of the argument. With the growing popularity of the argument, some presidential candidate’s have run with universal healthcare as a major component of their platform. Barak Obama supports this theory and is running under the basis that if he were to be elected he would institute such a policy.
A manuscript of the aforementioned speech is available at http://obama.senate.gov/
speech/070125-the_time_has_co/ . Obama’s pathos oriented speech has moved many people, but there are a some fundamental flaws not addressed in his speech. Being a charismatic leader is an important trait for a candidate, but voters must use their head instead of their heart. Interestingly, some in this country seem to vote based solely on pathos inspired speeches, forgetting the ethos aspect or lack there of. This is the flaw that I find in this speech. Barak Obama has nearly no experience in the healthcare industry, and has been a politician or working toward being a politician his entire adult life. Although there is a glaring lack of expertise behind his thoughts on healthcare, Obama clearly has consultants to aid him on his opinion. These consultants, however, are employed for one reason only, to sway the vote in favor of their employer.
A key component of Obama’s speech is his appeal to a less wealthy audience, who have virtually nothing to lose by a fundamental change in the healthcare system of this country. In particular, this speech was given to a group of members of Families USA. This organization is an influential healthcare lobbyist in Washington D.C. Obviously, Senator Obama would receive a warm reception from an audience comprised of such universal healthcare advocates. In addition to this audience, the manuscript was posted on Obama’s campaign website. Obama’s supporters, mainly democratic, are the primary audience of the website.
The greatest problem with the speech is that Obama acknowledges know adverse effects of his proposed legislation. The democratic audience, which the speech is geared toward, traditionally has been in favor of legislation aiding those less fortunate in society. This is where Obama’s use of pathos comes into play. While Obama regurgitates some numbers (that may or may not be true) given to him by his consultants, the overriding feel of the speech is that there is a great injustice in this country.
Nothing will rile voters into voting like an injustice against them, and the person promising to change this will reap the rewards. In actuality the president has little say in whether a universal healthcare system will be enacted. Actually, Obama has a greater influence in the Senate than he ever will as president. In the Senate, Obama can actually vote on such legislation.
Generally speaking, Obama’s speech was merely a ploy to receive votes, nothing more, nothing less. Candidates in both parties do this on a daily basis. They tell their contingent what they would like to hear, and in return they receive votes. Whether or not this legislation is ever passed into law is of no concern to me. I merely would like to point out the degree of pathos used in the campaigns of politicians across the country.