Julie Tomassetti

English 111

Joseph Cheatle

November 11, 2008

In 1935, which was during the Great Depression, Congress passed what was known as the Social Security Act.  It was under President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration when it was passed and was during the hard times of the Great Depression.  The law was intended to provide a minimal level of sustenance to older Americans which would ultimately save them from poverty.  The exact date of its signing was August 14, 1935.  The sum of the first check received by a Social Security recipient totaled $22.54.

The way that Social Security receives money is that basically money is taken from the people who work and are given to those who are retired.  As time went on, the tax percent on payrolls has increased from three percent in 1940, to fifteen percent by 1990.  As time goes on, the number of workers who support each beneficiary has decreased significantly.  The number has fallen from fifty workers per person in 1945, to three workers per person in 1990, and it is estimated that by the year 2025, the ratio will be down to two workers supporting every one beneficiary.

Today, Americans face the possibility that Social Security will run out before they can even collect money from the system they have paid into with taxes. Social Security is faced with a crisis for two main reasons, the rapid population growth as a result of the “Baby Boomers” and the fact that Americans life expectancy has increased greatly. More Americans are receiving Social Security than are paying into the Trust which is depleting the surplus and could eventually result in increasing deficits that could bankrupt the program. If Social Security were to collapse, elderly Americans would almost certainly be thrust into a state of poverty and would need to return to the workforce or remain in the workforce to supplement the income that would have been provided by a monthly Social Security check.

Since the program was initiated, steps have been taken to expand and protect Social Security.  One step was when Congress was forced to increase social insurance taxes so that more money would be flowing into the program.  This attempt was aimed mainly for the payments of the baby boomers when they retire.  In 1983, Alan Greenspan chaired a commission that was created to prevent the predicted collapse of the Social Security Trust in the mid-eighties. The tax increases that were suggested not only preserved the Trust but also began to create a surplus that could be invested to grow until the “Baby Boomers” began to retire.  The 1983 amendments gradually increased the full retirement age from 62 to 65 and also increased the penalty charged for claiming benefits early. Another change that resulted from the 1983 law was the overall decrease in benefits provided to retired Americans based on the year they were born and the work credits they accumulated during their time in the workforce. Another attempt to fix the problem occurred in 1999, when President Clinton proposed that the surplus his administration experienced, be devoted to Social Security and investments into the stock market.

If the current system is not amended, Social Security will begin to go bankrupt in 2038. That would mean that there would no money left by the time today’s college graduates are old enough to even file for Social Security. Because of that, new proposals are being suggested to alter the system to prevent its collapse.

Currently President Bush has strongly supported the idea of partial privatization.  In fact, he has narrowed it down to three alternative plans.  The first, would allow up to two percent of taxable wages be diverted from FICA, or Federal Insurance Contributions Act, to workers which would then be voluntarily placed into private accounts for investments in things such as stocks, bonds, or mutual funds.  The second plan would allow up to four percent of taxable wages, up to a maximum of $1000, would be diverted from FICA and placed voluntarily by workers into private accounts for investments.  The third plan would place one percent of wages along with two and a half percent from FICA, with a $1000 maximum, could be placed voluntarily by workers into private accounts for investment.  If privatization were to be implemented it would need government regulations to prevent market firms from over charging those who invest. The way to find out the success of privatization would be to track the investments of Americans who invest, and compare it to what they would have saved with the old system.

The advantages of these plans would allow the decision to be put into the hands of the people who lives are affected most.  People would then not have to worry about what they are putting into the fund and could focus on themselves.  Another advantage would be that if people do invest the money into stocks and other investments, it would immediately have a positive impact on the economy because of the money that would be following in it.  However, a disadvantage of this plan would be that the people who base their incomes on the regulations in place today and how well those people can do without their major income and risk investing it in what many would say to be an unstable economy.

Democrats who oppose privatization suggest it will only speed up the collapse of Social Security. While economist suggest that privatization is not as guaranteed to be successful as it has been advertised, and over time the stock exchange firms would gain power over the Social Security market and could continue to increase its fees and actually drain the pensions of retiring seniors. Also under privatization, firms would no longer be required to match the employees contribution to the Trust fund which reduces the amount of funds taken in, making it even more likely the Trust would fall into debt and eventually bankruptcy.

The second and possibly simplest thing to do would be to increase the current retirement age.  By doing this, it would reduce the shortfall by thirty six percent.  A major issue today is how life expectancy has increased dramatically over the years.  By increasing the retirement age, it would even out the fact that people are able to live longer as a result collect more benefits.  As a result, people would then be working enough to cover their benefits and wouldn’t have more people taking out then putting into the fund.  Many people believe that this would make them have to work longer, however in fact they would not.  Early retirement would still be available but with lower monthly benefits.  On the flip side of this, people who are forced to retire early and do not qualify for other benefits, would be left out to dry.  People as a whole would experience reduced benefits because of the income to take longer to receive from the people who have to work longer.  It could also come down to that maybe people may not to physically withstand more years of working and thus make this proposal unsuccessful.

Opponents to this solution believe raising the age directly targets the fact that Americans are living longer and theoretically could stay in the workforce longer as well. However, it is suggested that keeping the elderly in the workforce could increase the funds taken out of Social Security’s disability fund that could actually drain the money that increasing the retirement age originally attempted to save.

In 1983, Congress passed a law that required ninety percent of all wages in covered employment to be taxed.  Currently, there is a cap which incomes that exceed this are not taxed.  The cap rises as workers wages rise, but as of today the current cap is set at $90,000.  At the same time the income of the U.S.’s highest earners have risen more than the lower waged workers.  It is estimated that around fifteen percent of the nation’s income is untaxed due to this cap. 

An advantage of raising this cap would be that it would only affect six percent of taxpayers.  Although the number is low it is projected that it would cut the shortage by thirty two percent.  Another advantage is that it can be phased in slowly and does not necessarily need to be placed all at once.  This in fact would not be introducing anything new or untested, because all it would be doing is reinstating old policy. 

Although to many it may sound good, but if one happens to be a higher earner, then it would be very opposed.  Another disadvantage would be that if wages or incomes of those who earn a higher amount, then the rate would not be able to rise and this would result in a standstill.  Many people may believe that those who earn more should give more, but what this plan might do is make those who earn more give so much that they become a low income person which would make the percentage of the people decrease.

Finally, the fourth proposal is the idea of raising the payroll tax.  This particular comes with many advantages and disadvantages but could be the only real solution to the problem.  The obvious disadvantage is that it would heavily impact many low wage workers and ultimately be unattainable for them.  It also could affect the workers moral knowing that much of their paycheck is being taxed and would lower the amount of versatility that one could do with their money. 

The advantages to this proposal would result in 100% of the revenue shortage.  At the same time, if gradually increased, it would maintain a 75 -year solvency for the Social Security problem.  By paying a twenty one percent increase in premiums over several decades, it would not only cover benefits as long as you live, it would also cover the benefits to your survivors when you die as well.  Many people jump at the fact that the rates are already high, but many of those people are not planning for the future. By increasing the taxes, the people would not only solve the Social Security problems for themselves, but also those generations who live beyond them.  This proposal is one that would force you to plan for the future where as right now it is an option. 

Many of these proposals have been debated over not only politicians, but by people and workers alike.  Disagreements on some things have risen but some agreements have also risen as well.  One thing that we can all agree on is that Social Security is a major problem that needs to be dealt with sooner rather than later.  If we wait to long to solve the problem, it will be too difficult to adequately adjust and could result in a catastrophic event.  In our opinion, it is better to deal with the problem sooner rather than later.  We feel that the choice should ultimately be in the people’s hands.  If the people feel like they are better off having a privatized account, then what is there that should stop them.  However we feel that if the people decide to have their accounts privatized then there should be a cap which they are subject to.  On the other hand, if the people do not wish to obtain a privatized account, then changes need to be made similar to the changes made in 1983 which would increase the taxable income cap ceiling which is now at $90,000.  We feel that regardless of the option they choose, they government needs to increase the spending into the Social Security reform to help maintain or reform the system.  Douglass Orr, from the Department of Economics at Easter Washington University, argues that social security is not an investment but a form of insurance that Americans pay for the taxes but the payout is the pension after they have retired.  

This passage within the article left my mind thinking about what the real meaning, and point behind it, is. Frantz Fanon wrote this was the belief that without violence nothing would ever be accomplished; that without violence decolonization and liberation would not work. When Fanon wrote this portion of his work he directs his attention to those people who believe that violence does no good and accomplishes nothing. Those who believe in nonviolence seem to think that they neither promote violence through executions orby  watching their own country carry violent acts out. If you are able to vote and you vote for a president, or candidate, that sends troops to war does that mean that you helped to promote violence? This is where I have trouble determining exactly how I feel about this issue. Yes, before you vote for a candidate you should be well informed of his/her background concerns the use of violence in situations. But, can you really say that their decision to ultimately declare a situation in need of violent action is in our hands? I personally can understand both points of view. By voting for a candidate who will use violence as a mean to get things accomplished, or as a mean of defense, you are indirectly supporting violent acts. I’m one of those types of people that finds it hard to ultimately choose where I stand on certain issues, especially when I am able to understand where both views are coming from. This, of course, would be one of those issues. I do find this topic and this reading very intriguing and something, I believe, that if I did some research on I would most definitely be able to pick a side and back it with information, just as Fanon has.

In a normal debate, such as a political debate, the issue would be a very serious one. Each parties views would be addressed in a respectful, professional manner. When it comes to comedians though, it is as if they are given a free pass on having to be respectful and professional when discussing a universal topic. Maybe it is the way Dane begins the discussion: he enters it in a energetic physical way. With this energetic, physical way of addressing his audience he is able to get them involved and interested in what he is saying. More or less he is engaging them into being on his side. His opinion is always expressed when he is addressing an issue but he gives his opinion while incorporating it with jokes to keep the mood lighter and the audience engaged. With a lighter mood those watching will be less likely to focus on wether or not they agree with what he is saying because they are to engaged into the comedic sense of what is going on.

Religion is always a topic that is brought up in any debate or comedic setting. Why? Because it is so very controversial when someone says something offensive towards someone else’s beliefs. Not only does Dane make comedic references towards religion he makes comedic references towards those who do not believe in or practice a religion at all. What strategically knows that in comparison to those who do practice a religion those who don’t is a very low number. Before he beginning his routine he is aware that just from statistics there will be more who agree with his thoughts then those opposed.

Politicians do this is as well. They use statistics and audiences to help them support and back what they are saying. The difference is that Comedians are able to take their topics to levels that Politicians would be scolded for.

Many websites used for information resource purposes have sections set apart in the articles to focus on the criticism against King Mswati III. Wikipedia is an example of one of these sites. According to wikipedia King Mswati III has been criticized for his lavish lifestyle that he maintains with his most recent criticized purchase of a 500,000 dollar luxury car. The money for this car was paid for with money from his own personal account. One may say that if someone is that wealthy, and it is their own money, aren’t they able to spend it at their own free will? Normally I believe anyone would say yes, but when you are the leader of Swaziland spending such a large amount of money on luxury car seems self centered. Swaziland is currently the country with the highest prevalence rate of HIV/AIDS at 38.8%.(Wikipedia) There was a time when 1/3 of the entire country of Swaziland was suffering from the spread of HIV. While measures and law needed to be put into place to prevent the spread Swaziland’s King was attempting to use 45$ million on a private jet. Wikipedia provides us with the information that 45$ million is what the government has budgeted for healthcare to help the HIV/AIDS spread. Wikipedia seems to be very bias towards persuaded their readers to understand that the King of Swaziland seems to be spending more money on his own personal luxuries rather than using the money to aid in supporting the needs of his citizens.

BBC news is another online resource. Contrary to Wikipedia, BBC news gives off the impression that King Mswati III is doing everything he can for his country. When readers first begin looking over the site their eye is first and for most drawn to the direct quote on the page from King Mswati III himself. Even before the quote BBC news has the reading under the impression that Mswati III is completely overwhelmed with all of his responsibilities and trying to juggle home life. To make the article relatable for the readers the quote from Mswati is thrown into the mix. The last sentence of the article spins around the impression originally given off about how BBC news feels about King Mswati III: “King Mswati has been described as arrogant like his 19th century forefathers, King Mswati I and King Mswati II.” BBC News incorporates this sentence into the article but doesn’t elaborate on it. It leaves the reader wondering what their stance is on this statement. 

The New York Post did a review on the movie “Without the King,” which is a documentary focused around King Mswati III. The Post describes the movie as portraying the King in his typical lap of luxury while his country, 1 million citizens in an area the size of New Jersey, are plagued with poverty, HIV/AIDS, and death at a very young age. The Post does acknowledge the director of the documentary gives subsequent time to the King and his opponents to talk and give their opinions on issues. 

Even websites that seem to have the purpose of providing information of a given subject are bias one way or another. It is often times easy to see through certain words used or certain things left out. When anyone, even people who write articles for websites, have an opinion it is very hard to keep from voicing it in some way.

Jeff Jarvis (political blogger): http://www.buzzmachine.com

“Once and for all”

September 29, 2008

The blog begins with Jeff talking about the attacks others are making about the negativities of the Internet. He sets up the blog to begin with an introduction paragraph. He then titles each paragraph after that with what exactly others have said about the Internet. These titles are short and to the point, easy to read and easy to understand. This format of individually titled paragraphs remains constant throughout the blog. In the introduction quotes are used from people he has been in conversations with to add credibly to the blog. The quotes allow the readers to see that people actually feel this way and have, in turn, expressed them.

            Jeff seems to focus most of his attention towards the people who think that the Internet is just junk. When he titles the paragraphs he titles them as if he is directly repeating the thoughts of others. He says them as though when he beings the discussion that he will be in agreement. For example, “There’s junk of the internet,” when reading that you assume that the entire paragraph will consist of supports for that argument. What Jeff does it trick the intended audience into reading without knowing that they will read right into his argument? Repetition is used when he writes the word “True,” directly after the title of the paragraph, another way to trick the reader. Jeff blogs with an argumentative nature, he believes he is correct that if you don’t agree you are being foolish. The whole blog is very blunt; he doesn’t beat around the bush to get his point across. You can easily read the post and understand his feelings and why he feels that way.

www.facebook.com

“A few thoughts/annoyances”

Monday, September 8, 2008 at 7:51 pm

            Facebook gives the opportunity to not only connect with people not seen often enough but it also allows us to vent about our feelings. Sometimes whether or not someone reads them doesn’t matter; it’s the getting it out part the helps.

            The title of this particular blog or post is, “A few thoughts/annoyances.” These are her own thoughts so she sets them up in paragraphs based on topic. This blog is merely a way for her get her feelings out, anyone who cares to take them to sit down and read them is welcome. She focuses on the new facebook format, Election 2008, religion, some college topics. Obviously college students who use facebook would be more willing to reading this, especially if their interest’s match with one of the topics she is addressing.  The ethos in the blog, being the girl who is writing this, seems very annoyed. From reading you can infer that she has a lot on her mind, all of which is really bothering her. If you had to make a inference her this person based on this blog you would assume she is very uptight, high strung and very caught up in her own personal beliefs on issues. She asks several rhetorical questions several litotes. This blog will get anyone thinking about the issues she focuses on but the turn off from this post would probably come from her harsh feelings. I guess though, if you believe in her beliefs then this is your kind of blog. But I feel as though when you are defending your own argument it can become less effective if you openly and obviously bash the other side’s opinion. When someone’s own personal beliefs are directly being attacked they are not going to be very willing to hear the other sides opinion. Just a fact. Anyone who is “friends” with this girl on Facebook is allowed to view her post and comment on it. The problem with Facebook is, not everyone can read them and most of the people reading it will be the bloggers friends. Therefore, you don’t see many opposition comments towards these; no one wants to piss a friend off over Facebook.

The bridge used to enter Mary Lyon: From bed I can look directly to my left and out to window and see the 50 foot bridge. The bridge is constructed of cobble stone and two street lights stand at each end. In order to enter behind Mary Lyon from the rest of campus the bridge has to be used. It is surreal, calming, the one place where you can even escape Western Campus, which to an outside, would seem like enough of an escape. As you walk onto the bridge, on the left side, you will find it hard not to feel as though you have entered a forest. Trees tower over and little paths have been created for hiding out in. It’s Mary Lyon’s safe haven. At all hours of the day and night we go there to call friends from home; We go there to tell our parents our most recent grades, where no one else can hear us, in case choice words are flying. 

The logos behind the bridge is that logically without it you wouldn’t be able to easily get to Mary Lyon. It practical, its a bridge. A bridge is there because it has to be. But I truly believe that that bridge must be there in order for all of us highly stressed students to have an escape.

Pathos is associated with the emotion appeal. Places that are secluded and quiet can’t help but allow the mind to wonder. Emotions are often times suppressed; no one wants everyone else to think that their spare time is spent crying. But when you give yourself a chance to be alone and be let the calm and quiet take over the emotions flow; and I believe flowing emotions is healthy.

Through the ethos, or the credibility you can find the realness of the bridge. You don’t believe me that people spill their hearts out on the bridge, that tears hit the cobble stones at all hours? All you have to do is walk across to see; walk across to feel that all of us students want to think we have this college thing figured out but in reality all we need are a few minutes in quietness to realize we are not all that strong, and that is perfectly real.

            J.K. Rowling is the author of the award winning Harry Potter series, that to date, have sold over 400 million copies. The series has gained attention worldwide and the popularity seems to increase with the publication of each new book. What may not be as well known is Rowling’s fairy-tale story, of being on food stamps and welfare, to her new- found fortune. Rowling grew up in grew up England as a shy girl with “a mixture of insecurities and very bossy.” (January Magazine) Many consider her an inspiration and use her books as an escape from their own hell but Rowling’s fame wasn’t something she embraced with open arms. J.K. was convinced that fame wasn’t real or at the very least just temporary; “I kept thinking it’d go away, it will go away.” (January Magazine) The fame hasn’t seem to gone away, it has only moved forward allowing others to realize the pure ingenious of a very humble women.

            In June of 2008 J.K. Rowling graced Harvard University in her awing ability to give the annual Commencement Address. Tying in with Rowling’s inability to fully accept her high fame status she starts out her speech looking incredibly nervous; continually looking down at her notes except for when she says “and, above all, graduates.” Within the first sentence of her speech Rowling makes sure her main intended audience, being the graduates, understand she is there for them. Even at the age of graduation, early 20’s, there is still a sense of innocence that wants to be able to connect to a woman of even J.K. Rowling’s status. She does this by jokingly down playing her nerves about giving her speech, tapping into the graduate’s emotions. Just as Rowling had endured “weeks of fear an nausea,” upon the presentation of her speech, it goes with out saying that the graduate’s are feeling that same intense feeling about entering the real world officially. As the ethos, Rowling makes the point to make a reference to her claim that makes her famous, Harry Potter. At the end of her introduction she says “ I will convince myself that I am at the world’s largest Gryffindor reunion,” knowing that everyone in the audience will immediately be able to make a connection to this woman standing in front of them. Rowling clearly states that in her speech she will focus on “the benefits of failure.”  Her purpose, ironically on the day of such success for these graduates, is to focus on what she calls “the crucial importance of imagination,” something that Rowling is known for. Her Harry Potter series have sold over 400 million copies, have been translated into 65 different languages and is credited with setting records for being the fastest selling books of all time. So when she states that imagination is important, not only does she mean it but it also has helped her become as successful as she is to this day.

 She tries to associate with the graduate’s feelings by the telling them, “What I feared most for myself at your age was not poverty, but failure.” Rowling grew up in poverty; she knew the depression, stress and anxiety that come with having to worry about where the next meal will come from. Her goal though was to make these newly released adults understand that sometimes in the face of things, should have you worried beyond belief, failure can over pass that; because when you feel like you have failed, you feel as though you have failed not only yourself but everyone else around you that had, to that point, helped to try and get you there. Rowling assures us that society will always be quick to point out to us exactly what they consider a failure as, but sometimes failure benefits us in ways we may not have ever realized. Rowling supports her claim, which is a key in rhetoric; under the basis that sometimes we must fear in order to find out whom we are to realize that sometimes we have beat failure just by surviving to the next day.

She gives us evidence to support her claim that failure has benefits by showing us first hand from her experiences in life that teach us discipline, will power, and wisdom. The logo of her speech is found in the mere logic that in order to fully succeed we must know what it feels like to be as far from success as possible.

            It is so easy in life to focus on what could happen, how we could fail and all the different possibilities of failing. Rowling gives us her claim that failure is beneficial and that imagination is powerful. She supports us and gives us every logical reason to believe in what she says.

What’s important is that we focus on our imagination, because like Rowling says, it can rebuild our lives. Imagination can be the driving force that can allow us to realize even with failure lingering over us we can use our imagination to steer us towards everything we’ve ever wanted. 

In high school I never formally used rhetoric in a paper. I interpret it as being a way of writing that uses formal reasoning and sophisticated writing as a way to persuade someone to your way of thinking. I also have learned that there is a key importance of having a place to the argument you are bringing up. Understanding that in each rhetorical piece you must have an emotion, an understanding of the author and an ethical appeal will help create a proper rhetorical analysis.

Jamaica Kincaid

“England was a special jewel all right, and only special people got to wear it. The people who got to wear England were English people. They wore it well and they wore it everywhere.” Jamaica makes this statement right off the bat in the reading. I personally feel that it immediately leaves a sour taste in my mouth. She doesn’t refer to her self as one of them, she addresses them as “they” putting them into a category of their own. She later goes onto say that “I find England ugly, I hate England;the weather is like a jail sentence, the hair of English people is so straight, so dead looking, the English have an unbearable smell so different from the smell of people I know, real people of course.” I would have to say those two quotes give us a very comprehensive understanding of Jamaica’s feelings towards England, she hates England. Her strong feelings give the whole reading a very somber feel. The whole reading feels gloomy and dark, she never even tries to give the impression that there may be even a few positive sides to England. I think it’d be safe to say she sets the tone for the reading quite clearly. 

I will say that Kincaid doesn’t leave much to our imaginations  as to what she thinks of England. That may be one good thing about the reading. It is very clear she hates England, therefore we as the readers can continue throughout the reading not having to struggle to find where she stands. I personally believe though that the negatives of this reading out weigh the positive ones. For one the reading is very negative. For someone like myself who has never traveled to England it immediately makes me feel as though I shouldn’t even bother. On page 106 she says “In me, the space between the idea of it and its reality had become filled with hatred, and so when at last I saw it I wanted to take it into my hands and tear it into little pieces and then crumble it up as if it were clay, child’s clay.” She says that this is the real reality, that all the pictures and paintings that are used to portray England to those who don’t know its real “hatred” are false. She wants us to also believe that she knows much about the English history, she wants us to realize that she doesn’t hate England from just what she sees, but from all that she knows.