Should Harriet Tubman be on the $20 bill?

In this blog, I will be commenting on a blog called “A Bold Move.” The topic made headlines as Jacob J. Lew proposed the idea of putting the face of Harriet Tubman on the front of the $20 bill. The question raised by the author is, “does having Harriet Tubman on a bill make a big difference?” Now, I believe that Harriet Tubman is absolutely incredible and has benefitted the world in the most extraordinary ways by standing up for equality. However, my question is, why did they feel the need to extinguish Andrew Jackson completely? Tubman, without a doubt, deserves to be honored, but at the cost of removing Jackson does not seem right. I understand that it is just a piece of paper and it should not be overdramatized, but being on the money is a symbol of honoring contribution. As the world becomes more equal, we should not get carried away in the sense of replacing previously higher ranked people with previously lower ranked people. Ironically, the entire point of having Tubman on the dollar is to show that we are all equal, but by replacing Jackson, it can easily mislead people to think otherwise. No one should be replaced unless they are were horrible and caused wrongful harm, thus deserving it. Tubman can be equally honored in numerous amounts of ways that do not include replacing others.

The blog mentions that 7 white men are on the dollar, ruling out other races and women. Obviously, this is completely wrong when considering how far we have come to realize our equality, but that still does not make it right to dishonor those already on the bill. Those people made a significant impact to the American country that will last forever. We have developed to acknowledge all races and genders, so lets do so without discrediting those in the past. A similar scenario is if the founder /CEO of a major company had their sculpture in front of the building where the headquarters was located, but was destroyed and replaced several years later because a new person took on the role of CEO.

Conclusively, yes, Harriet Tubman deserves honorable glorification, but not at the cost of another. There are other ways to equally honor a great historical figure.

Should The Controversial Topic of Abortion Be Banned By The U.S. Government?

Being one of the most controversial topics in America, abortion, should never be legal. There are numerous amounts of information to support my rather bold statement.

Yes, I acknowledge that women have the right to make choices of when to have children in relation to their age, financial stability, relationship stability, etc. I also understand that raising a child is a lot of work, especially for someone who is unprepared. However, there are far better alternatives, such as adoption. For instance, adoption is cheaper than abortion and it does not involve discontinuing the development of a human being. People may even go as far to argue that a fetus is not legally a human being and that it is virtually brain dead with no self-awareness. My argument is that it is a living being in development. There is a reason that several women, who desire to have children, become incredibly upset in cases of having a miscarriage or accidentally losing the baby. If there was nothing to lose, why would they be upset at all when they are informed by their doctor that the living being died in the womb?

Also, imagine if you could see into the future. Let’s say you were thinking about terminating your unborn child through abortion, but were curious to see what would become of that child if you kept him or her. Behold, the future shows that your unborn child would soon make millions of dollars, achieve fame, and make a lasting positive contribution for the world to remember forever by benefitting people through successes. Oh, and let’s not forget, you would be receiving endless amounts of beneficial treatment as well. Your child would be a constant blessing and joy to be around, making your life happier every single day. With all of this in consideration, has your mind changed? If you said yes, then this is a fine example as to why abortion is a selfish act.

Yes, the woman will have to endure an estimated 9 months of pregnancy and I compassionately do understand that. It will be extremely hard, but it is about doing what is right for the potential human. We are here to create lives, not terminate them. Every life deserves a chance to make a contribution. How would you feel if you were about to be removed completely through existence starting tomorrow and there was nothing you could do about it? Personally, I will never be able to believe that a woman in this world becomes pregnant with the purpose in life solely being to terminate the baby.

Some people like to raise the argument that the world is overpopulated and does not need unwanted pregnancies, making abortion a good thing. Actually, I responded to a comment on YouTube recently in regards to someone claiming this statement. This is what I wrote: “With technology progressing rapidly, who knows what possibilities we will have in the future? I would not even doubt an eventual migration to a different planet. The possibilities are endless. You think about the possibilities of what overpopulation will bring, but forget about the possibilities of humans finding a decent solution through something like technology. You forget that possible benefits that human life may bring. Anything other than purposefully killing off the human species is a better solution. How would people determine who lives and who dies when all of us are equally valued? The purpose of human life is to lovingly enjoy, chase your dreams, and benefit others through contribution. What would be the point to human life if people were just going to get killed off because of overpopulation? It makes zero sense and would destroy the meaning of life in the first place. Forcefully sacrificing others through death in order for the betterment of others is not reasonable because happiness is not found at the cost of other people. Economic, political, and social developments are in no way more important than human life itself. Remember that we regard those things important because we are currently living. If killing others off is ok, then who cares about all the other stuff? Life is pointless with your concept. If humans are willing to kill others in order for them to progress, why progress at all? We are all valuable lives. Consider reading the short story, "Those Who Walk Away From Omelas" and it will show that, again, when humans have to bring suffering upon others in order to gain what they think is happiness, they will find no completion. There are always alternative solutions that may require more hard work and patience as opposed to settling a solution by quickly killing to prevent overpopulation. Would you willingly sacrifice yourself to die in order to have a more decent sized population?”

The topic of abortion is controversial and often produces a bias response. Everyone has his or her own opinions, which I respect to a high degree. Wrongfully judging others is something I avoid at all costs and everyone’s opinion should be considered when coming to a decisions. However, I believe that it is undeniably wrong to prevent a future human being to have a chance at living this beautiful thing we call life.

What To Consider When Dealing With Bernie Sanders and Socialism

All Eyes on U.S., provided an excellent blog with a reasonable argument of their beliefs. Now, I agree with you that America needs to focus on itself, as we are on somewhat of a decline. Sanders is the type of guy who is ready to get stuff done and I love how he wants to benefit those who are put in an unfortunate position financially. Yes, free universal health care, higher minimum wages, and free college educations sounds incredible, but it is not that easy. Every president becomes president because they are willing to put in the hard work to benefit America as a nation, which raises the question, don’t you think all of those great things would have been implemented by now if there was no potential consequence?

Sander’s most significant proposals are providing a single-payer health care system, breaking up big banks, raising minimum wage to $15, and ending free trade agreements NAFTA, CAFTA, permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) with Chine and the recently-signed Trans-Pacific Partnership. In reality, most of his ideas have solely focused on spending without a clear idea as to how to pay for the proposals. One can interpret that paying for his programs would require an increase in the deficit and/or higher taxes. If Sanders’ policies deepen, the budget deficit for many years down the road, it could impact the bond market and creditor, driving up interest rates and having an inability to give out loans. Overall, it could be more expensive to run the government. Bill Clinton learned this during his presidency as he was forced to prioritize deficit reduction instead of fulfilling his spending promises.

            Bernie Sanders has included raising taxes on the rich and corporations in order to pay for a large expansion of programs for everyone else at the heart of his campaign. In other words, there will be an enormous tax increase for everyone except those at the bottom. I am in full support of helping those in need. However, what will the reaction are when taxes are raised exponentially? Isn’t the purpose of America to be a place where every American can determine their success based off of their hard work? Of course, some are put into much better situations than others, providing them a seemingly easier access to opportunity, but that does not make it impossible. I am often times alone with this thought, but most of the most successful people in the world started with absolutely nothing. If they could find success, then why can’t others who are at the bottom? Must they continuously rely on the government to get them out of trouble? People who are outrageously successful did not blame any of their surroundings because they understood that being successful was completely their responsibility. They made the sacrifice and put in the sickening hard work without making excuses and never giving up so that one-day they could achieve their dream. If they can do it then so can anyone, people just have to believe in their limitless capabilities and put in the work. I am not claiming the unfortunate to be lazy or anything because I have never experienced such hardship. All I am saying is that it is possible to overcome it and it has been done before.

Bernie Sanders has wonderful intentions for America, I just believe that forced economic equality would defeat the purpose of America, which is the ability to have all kinds of limitless opportunity if you are willing to do the work. I support his strive to help those in financial problems, however, it needs to be paid for without making successful people suffer from their hard earned money. They are there for a reason; doesn’t it ruin their freedom and equality in a way, making them pay more than everyone else? It sounds reasonable that they should pay more because they earn more, but I feel as if everyone is equal in America no matter what position.

In Conclusion, this was an incredible blog and I enjoyed reading it as my ideas and interest began to flow. Keep it up!

Economic Equality Is Not The Solution

It has been made quite apparent that people have started to embrace a “socialism” where the government takes ownership of large portions of private enterprise production and transfers wealth from one group of people to another. Bernie Sanders claims he would take control of some produce of private companies, as opposed to all factors. He is promoting a version of government that relates to Germany under Adolph Hitler and Italy under Benito Mussolini. Incredibly similar to Mussolini, Sanders gains voters by saying that citizens are well off because they had gained their wealth on the backs of the poor. Sanders believes that the US economy is in trouble because of the greed of the wealthy. He believes that a lot of products are a waste, when considering the amount of people suffering.

Personally, I feel very strongly about this topic. Of course, it would be absolutely fantastic to benefit the people, especially those who are the most unfortunate. My goal in life is to make a powerful contribution to help the world. However, blaming the rich is not the answer. Taxing and taking from the wealthy is not the answer. Economic equality is not the answer. What makes America incredible is the fact that each citizen has the ability to determine his or her own success. If you are willing to put in the work, you can achieve your dreams and goals. Several people, most who are struggling with finances, complain and blame others for their situation. Yes, everyone must play with the cards they are dealt. Some are born into a bad situation and others are born into one with an easier access to more opportunity. However, that is in no way an excuse. Every single person has the same ability. If you are willing, determined, obsessed, motivated, persistent, hardworking, etc. you can accomplish any goal. Numerous people have started with absolutely nothing, but they turned it into something. They stopped blaming everything around them and realized that one’s own success is their own responsibility. Examples of this are Starbucks owner Howard Schultz, Oprah Winfrey, Paul Mitchell, Ralph Lauren, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Chris Gardner, J.K. Rowling, and the list goes on. It is easy to not put in the work and just blame the government instead. The people in that list refused to keep complaining and actually did something about it. I believe anything is possible if you refuse to give up, no matter how many failures come in your path. Being financially stable is a wonderful thing to strive for, but throughout the process, people also must learn that self wealth through money is not where to find your sense of completion. 

I take it from Warren Buffet who says, “No conspiracy lies behind this depressing fact: The poor are most definitely not poor because the rich are rich.” He also claims, “Nor are the rich undeserving. Most of them have contributed brilliant innovations or managerial expertise to America’s well-being. We all live far better because of Henry Ford, Steve Jobs, Sam Walton, and the like. Instead, this widening gap is an inevitable consequence of an advanced market-based economy.” He professes that there should be an expansion of earned income tax credit. There should be a federal tax credit that is targeted at the working class Americans, giving them a credit starting with the first dollar they earn and rises until it hits a ceiling, then phases out. If economic equality is enforced and I was in the top 1%, I know for a fact that I would leave the country and this is what I imagine most would do.

There are several controversial arguments, as everyone knows, in regards to the solution of making America’s economy better. It is unclear whether Buffet’s proposal would work, but he agrees with my argument that powerfully discourages economic equality. With economic equality, we no longer have America, a land of limitless opportunity, something that each person has the ability to fulfill.

Democratic Candidates Promise No Deportation of Illegal Immigrants Unless Having Criminal Records. A Good or Bad Move?

Elise Foley, a well-experienced immigration and politics reporter for the Huffington Post, writes about the massive promise made by Bernie Sander and Hilary Clinton to refuse deportation of children or adults without criminal records. Intended audiences throughout the article are advocates, immigrants, and U.S. citizens. Advocates have now gained a major tool in the fight against deportations if one of the democratic candidates is elected president. Both Hilary and Bernie criticized President Obama and his take on deportation in America, believing it is the wrong approach. Clinton also added in that undocumented people in the country should be given a path to citizenship. However, a great deal of speculation is taken when considering Clinton’s statement in 2014, as she said that unaccompanied minors “should be sent back” to their native countries and that the nation’s asylum should be followed. These points together make it seem as if her promise is somewhat contradictory. I agree with the author in the claim that “although the rate of deportations in general has gone down from record highs in the early years of his presidency, it’s not enough to prevent every family from being ripped apart or to allow ever person who asks for asylum in the U.S. to stay." The bold promises will be extremely difficult to keep and it was not a good decision to make because they are now accountable to it forever. The author believes the promises could turn to act negatively toward the candidates in the future and I completely agree. In my subjective opinion, I would almost guarantee that an issue in regards to immigration will come up, thus causing them to break their promises. Immigration is becoming an increasingly discussed issue every single day and the two candidates ignorantly decided to make one of the most difficult promises to keep while also being in favor of the non-U.S. citizens. If unaccompanied minors are turned away at the border, which is the main concern, advocates have the weapon of throwing this promise in either Clinton's on Sanders' face. Illegal immigration could very well turn out to hurt American citizens in regards to a lower job hiring rate, unpaid taxes, collapsed healthcare systems, etc. While America prides itself on welcoming new people and joining together as a unity, the blanket promise could prove to be quite the rash decision in future years to come.