The Federal Reserve

      Although it is easier to point out all of the things wrong with the Federal Reserve, the importance of this central banking system outweighs its faults and it is still an asset to this country.  An asset, in this context, is defined as a useful or valuable thing or quality.  The Federal Reserve is a useful system to have in our country for numerous reasons.  It "conducts the nation's monetary policy" (federal reserve.gov), supervises and regulates banks, and maintains the stability of the financial system.  The Federal Reserve is a vital structure in the United States.
      The monetary policy is what the Federal Reserve uses to makes decisions.  According to CNBC, the monetary policy is the "regulation of interest rates and the availability of money in order to provide economic growth and prevent downturns" (CNBC.com).  The Federal Reserve can supply more credit to banks for lending if the economy needs to grow faster and create more jobs.  It can also lower banks' reserves and can "lend more to businesses and consumers as well as to other banks" (CNBC.com).  Doing this increases the money supply in the economy.  The Federal Reserve is also needed to spot excessive growth in order to prevent inflation and fix it by increasing interest rates.  To maintain the stability of the financial system, the Federal Reserve decides whether to increase or decrease the money supply.  An example of this would be "when the Fed buys securities in the market, like U.S. government Treasury bonds, which increases the amount of money in circulation" (investopedia.com).  It is the Federal Reserve's job to manage the financial systems of the nation.  All consumers are impacted by the state of the financial system in our country and when issues come up the "Fed’s job of ensuring that all is working within a controlled balance becomes paramount to maintaining a well-run, efficient economy" (investopedia.com).  The Federal Reserve is a necessary asset of the the United States, which maintains the order of imperative financial situations.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_12799.htm
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/090514/federal-reserve-system-affects-you-more-you-might-think.asp
http://www.cnbc.com/id/43752521

Business Cycles, Recessions, and Depressions

          It is difficult for economists to predict the business cycle for many reasons.  One reason being that periods of expansion and recession are unavoidable and "driven in great part by a tug-of-war between expectations and reality" (2 Ip).  Business cycles are also heavily reliant on market cycles making them extremely susceptible to frequent change.  The business economy is largely about determining how people will react to certain things and that's hard enough to determine in just regular day to day life let alone when it comes to the future of businesses.  Businesses make these plans based on how much they expect their sales to grow, making these decisions just as dependent "on gut feelings as cold calculations" (2 Ip).  Business cycles are tough to predict.
          A bull market and a bear market contrast each other. A bull market is when the market appears to be in a long-term incline and a bear market is when the market appears to be in a long term decline.  A bull market tends to develop when the economy is strong, the unemployment rate is low, and inflation is under control.  A bear market is most likely to occur when unemployment is high and inflations is rising.  Bear markets are also "more violent than bull markets and the unemployment rises more quickly than it falls" (2 Ip).

          Imbalances have occurred throughout history causing these economic patterns.  Things such as crop failures and band panics were known as natural disasters during the nineteenth century in America.  A spike in oil prices is what caused these changes in 1973 and 1990.  Many believe that "if we could just inoculate ourselves against past imbalances then we could eliminate recessions" (3 Ip), however, this is not true because these imbalances come in many different forms and it is impossible to protect ourselves against all of them.
          A recession and a depressions often go hand in hand.  A recession is defined as two consecutive quarters in which real  gross domestic product falls.  A depression is described as a severe and prolonged recession.  A recession is mainly considered a depression when real gross domestic product falls for more than two consecutive quarters and when the "economy's normal recuperative mechanism fails to engage" (4 Ip).  A recession more often than not, leads to a depression.

The Underground Economy

            The underground economy is a system in which those who can not find a full-time or regular job are paid under the table.  This way they do not report their income and therefore have no taxes to pay on it.  There are positives and negatives to this system.  A positive to this system is an increase in consumer spending, however, this is only a short term effect.  Because people  gain more money through the underground economy, more money goes back into the system, "boosting the economy" (Koba).  A negative to this system is that this system is often associated with dangerous illegal activities.  "Drug dealing" (Koba) is a main way of making money through the underground economy.  This economy is very well known and because it is growing, it is becoming more and more clear that there is a need for change in our regular every day economy.  This is one effect that is negative because it shows us what is is wrong with the economy but also very helpful when trying to determine how our economic system today needs to change.  

Net Neutrality

          Net neutrality is a current controversial topic of discussion.  The idea of net neutrality is that all internet traffic should be treated equally.  It is the "principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites" (www.dig.csail.mit.edu).  It is important to both corporations and consumers.  Corporations would benefit from this because they could charge clients for going on certain sites and partly control your internet access.  Net neutrality is important for the consumers because most believe that corporations such as Comcast and Verizon should not have control over internet traffic.  The FCC controls the neutrality of the internet with the Open Internet Order.  It was created in 2010 to "prevent broadband Internet service providers from blocking or interfering with traffic on the Web" (http://www.savetheinternet.com).  The order prevents wired ISPs from blocking and discriminating against content on the internet.

Spoils System Vs. Merit System

          The "spoils system" played a major role in our government for a long period of time and was eventually replaced by the merit system.  Basically, the "spoils system" was a system in our government that hired employees based on their political connections and the merit system is an arrangement where people are hired based on their ability to perform a job.  Andrew Jackson, the seventh president, is credited with starting the "spoils system" because he gave it it's name after John Quincy Adams gained his presidency through what is known as the "corrupt bargain" today.  Henry Clay, who was also a candidate for President and a member of the House, threw his support to John Quincy Adams and was subsequently appointed Secretary of State by Adams.  Andrew Jackson and his supporters were infuriated by this clear act of quid pro quo.  The Spoils System was formally ended  when President James Garfield was assasinated by an upset office seeker who was denied an appointment and subsequently took revenge against Garfield.  The act that ended this "spoils system" was the Pendelton Act of 1883, which also created the merit system.  The president could now only hand out a certain amount of jobs that must be approved by the senate. 
          The "spoils system" is still in our government today.  An example of this could be something like the amount of money raised by Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown to get elected as the Massachusetts State senators.  Together they raised seventy million dollars (open secrets.org).  This shows how people in our government are still hired based on their status rather than their ability to perform a certain job.  In my opinion, the "spoils system" will most likely never vanish completely. 

Riley Vs. California

          I believe it is necessary for the police to obtain a warrant before searching through a person's cell phone, therefore, I agree with the Supreme Court's ruling. In cases of emergency such as "finding a ticking bomb or a kidnapped child" (Smith 17), I believe a warrantless search is acceptable because lives are at stake. Many people have very personal conversations on their cell phones, which is why it is important for there to be solid evidence suggesting there is something incriminating on the cell phone before searching it. According to the article, these electronic devices "hold the most intimate details of a person's life" (Smith 17), therefore, they should be protected.
Even though the writers of the Fourth Amendment were not expecting such devices such as smart phones, tablets, and laptops, all of the Supreme Court justices agree that the devices fall under the amendment. Because the police did not have permission, the nine justices ruled that "they violated his Fourth Amendment right to privacy" (Smith 15). Most would agree that cell phones should be included in our right to privacy. Many people keep their most private information, such as personal conversations, photos, and bank records on their cell phones. Today rather than jotting down notes on a piece of paper, the average person could more than likely store that information in their cell phone. Because of their easy accessibility, they have just become a common keepsake for most information. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. Argues that just because "technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand, does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought" (Smith 16). Cell phones also provide information like where exactly a person was at a certain date and time. Because of all the private information stored on a person's cell phone, I believe the devices should be protected by the Fourth Amendment, meaning a warrant must be given before they are searched.

Time Capsule Unearthed from 1795

            On Thursday, December 11, a time capsule was discovered from underneath the State House building in Boston Massachusetts.  Works came across it while attempting to repair a water leak.  The capsule was buried by Paul Revere and Samuel Adams in 1795 when Adams was the governor.  It was originally put there when they began construction on the State House's iconic dome.  As soon as the workers fixing the leak stumbled upon it, the Secretary of State William Galvin, who happens to be the head of the state historical commission, contacted Pamela Hatchfield, the head of object conservation at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts.  The was controversy on whether or not the box should be removed from where it was buried, which was a barricade of stone.  The decision was to try to carefully chip away at the stone to see if the box was fully intact and if it was, to hopefully remove it.  After seven hours were spent trying to extricate the capsule, it was finally removed.  The contents are of concern due to time and other obvious reasons, however, the plaster surrounding the container was in good condition.  In the box, there is believed to be several coins and a plaque inscribed by Paul Revere.  Other contents are expected be found inside as well. Even though the capsule has not been opened yet, it has been x-rayed.  It is expected to be opened over the next week or so.

            I believe this is related to American Government because the contents were put there by people who had a huge say in the founding of our government.  People who were of the first in our nation thought that what ever was in that box was important enough to be locked away and discovered at some point in the future after they were long gone.  There could be words written that change the way we look at government or statements that affirm the way our Founding Fathers and earliest Patriots wanted government to be.  There was some dissuasion on what should be done with the capsule after it is opened and such.  As of yet, the decision is to rebury it and possibly add objects to it.  I admit this happening was not exactly an issue but an interesting, semi-controvertial situation that I believe was handled in an appropriate way by everyone involved including the press. 

The Electoral College

          The Electoral College was created for a number of reasons.  One reason is because there was a fear of factions in the United States.  The electoral college would prevent the largest faction or group from being able to rule unfairly.  The Electoral College also protects those with money and power, which tend to be the fewer.  In short, a main reason it was created was the fact that our forefathers feared the large masses of poor and for the security of private property.  The Electoral College allows the federals and the states to run the elections.  This is an example of indirect democracy, which protects the elite from the poor.  I believe that this system was fair for the time period (1787) it was designed for because then, most of the elite and powerful were those who were the most educated.  It is clear that times have changed and for the time period we are in now, I think it is a bit unfair.  People today realize that brilliance can come from anywhere and a great amount of money is not necessarily needed to become well educated.  The Electoral College has failed on numerous occasions, one of them being in 1800.  The Democratic-Republican electors gave both Thomas JEfferson and Aaron Burr an equal number of Electoral votes.  Because it was a tie, it had to be settled in the House of Representatives, which eventually came in Jefferson's favor.  Because of this failure in the system, the twelfth amendment was made to prevent a tie from ever happening again.

Head of State: Satires and the Evolution of Gilliam

         
          The movie Head of State makes a comedic attack on an electoral system where candidates don't say what they actually  think but simply repeat safe centrist platitudes.  This movie satirizes the nature of political parties in many ways such as the way the campaigns are run and what is said to each party to gain votes.  The candidates mainly only say what their party wants to hear in order to be elected, not exactly what they believe.  It also satirizes how a candidate may pretend to care about topics on camera and when off camera, he couldn't care less.  For example when on camera, Brian Lewis gave a small speech about how important the children are and their safety is but off camera, it was easy to tell he was faking his interest.  This movie shows how people don't always know as much as they think they know when it comes to what is going on behind the scenes in politics.

          Mays Gilliam evolves greatly throughout his candidacy.  He begins his campaign very unaware of the power he holds and  only saying what he is told to say by his advisors/campaign managers.  He is told exactly what to say and how to say it.  It is clear that he doesn't understand that he also has a voice and can use this opportunity to make the kind of differences he wishes to.  After a talk with his brother Gilliam starts to realize that he can voice his own opinions and make a difference in the county that he believes in.  As he visits more states, he gets into the grove of how to run his own campaign.  Gilliam really begins taking over and coming up with his own ideas and stratagies after learning that his advisors didn't actually believe in him.  He starts saying the things that he truly believes in and what most of the population believes in also.  Once Gilliam does this, he gains more and more votes until he eventually wins the election.

Election Day

             
               Although I am eighteen, I am not yet registered to vote.  If were registered, however, I would have voted for Charlie Baker for multiple reasons. I like that Charlie Baker focuses on secondary education and I agree with his plan for higher education.  A three-year bachelor's degree could reduce the cost of a regular college education by 25%.  Furthermore, I believe students would be willing to work a bit hater within those three years to save their parents and/or themselves thousands of dollars.  I also agree with Charlie Baker's plan for sick time for workers. Martha Coakley's plan states that any business with over eleven workers would qualify and I believe that this would include many more businesses than necessary.  Charlie Baker's idea is that only businesses with over fifty workers will be eligible for paid sick time, with the plan of one hour for every forty hours worked. In my opinion, this idea is more reasonable because it lets businesses have more control over what they do.  Also, it is unlikely that businesses would not give sick time because if they didn't they would have a difficult time getting employers.  When it comes to welfare reform, Martha Coakley seems to not be focused on the issue while Charlie Baker wants stricter welfare conditions.  Charlie Baker also wants to raise the age for work exemption from sixty to sixty-five, which in my opinion makes a lot of sense because people live longer than they used to and many people are still able to work even past the age of sixty-five.  Some people argue that Charlie Baker cannot be trusted on the issue of climate change because he changed his mind in the past five years.  I don't believe this is a problem because his opinion very well could have been the result of more evidence arising on the topic of climate change.  Lastly, when it comes to climate change, I believe that both parties have solid goals for reducing green house gasses.  If  I were a registered voter, I most likely would have voted for Charlie Baker because of the reasons presented.

Lincoln and the Thirteenth Amendment

               In the movie Lincoln, the president faces many difficulties when trying to ratify the thirteenth amendment.  Many people of the time period had issues with the proposal of the amendment because they were racist.  The majority of the public did not want African Americans to have the right to vote, which they believed would eventually happen if the amendment were to be passed.  Americans were also worried about losing their jobs to African Americans.  Lincoln had trouble passing the amendment because he needed two thirds for the majority and most of the house wasn't republican.  He also needed democratic support.  There  were many complications as to how the war would end and most of the people who wanted the amendment to pass only wanted this because Lincoln made it seem like this was the only way for the war to end.  Lincoln used his implied powers, which were slightly corrupt, to help the amendment pass.  Lincoln offers future jobs, such as post master and mayor, to the lame duck democrats as a bribe to gain their support in the ratification of the thirteenth amendment.  The president was also corrupt due to the fact that he lied about upcoming peace talks.  He wanted peace to be reliant of the ratification of this amendment.  Lincoln obviously thought that getting this amendment passed was of the utmost importance.  A vital effect of the amendment passing for Lincoln would be all of the votes he would receive from the African American population.  Lincoln was planning on running for another term as president and knew that if he passed this amendment, he would gain an abundance of votes for the next election.

Amendment Memes

               The fourth amendment states that the government must have probable cause in order to search one's private property.  If a judge declares there is enough probably cause, the police can search your property against your will. 

               The second amendment states that we have the right to bear arms.  This amendment is extremely controversial, especially with the recent rise in gun violence.  Not everyone should be allowed to own a gun, yet those people still manage to obtain them anyway.  

Family Guy: Petoria

          In an episode of Family Guy, a nation called Petoria forms.  Petoria is an Oligarchy because power remains within the hands of very few people and there is only one political party.  There are positives and negatives to Peter's new anti-federalist, small government.  Peter did not need to follow any laws that the people of United States had to follow, therefore, Peter and his family had more freedom to do whatever they wanted to at the time.  Another benefit of Petoria was that Peter and his family did not need to pay taxes to the United States government.  Even though there were positives to the Griffins's succession from Quahog, there were also many detrimental negatives that caused the Griffins to eventually need to become a part of the United States once again. When Peter annexes his neighbor's land, it causes issues with the United States and the military surrounds his house.  Peter faces consequences such as not being able to share the resources he would need from the United States, such as electricity, heat, and water for his house.  Peter's wife, Lois, even had to home school her children because they were not allowed to go to the United States's public schools.  Petoria may have seemed like a good idea to Peter at the time but it could not survive. 

Ratification of the Constitution 

            It was very difficult to ratify the Constitution for many reasons.  This difficulty was mainly because nine states had to ratify the Constitution in order for it to be official and many were concerned about the possible new form of government.  Those that opposed the Constitution were called antifederalists.  Antifederalists believed that it was wrong to create the Constitution and argued that "the delagates in Philadelphia had exceeded their congressional authority by replacing the Articles of Confederation with an illegal new document" (The Ratification of the Constitution). These beliefs made ratification a somewhat problematic process.  Some people believed that the Constitution was made to benefit only the well-off Philadelphians and that the Constitution "gave too much central power to the central government" (The Ratification of the Constitution).  Most of these allegations were able to be countered by Federalists, who were in favor of the Constitution.  The federalists claimed that "rejection of the constitution would result in anarchy and civil strife" (The ratification of the Constitution).  One of the most significant of convictions was that the Constitution did not include a bill of rights but the federalists, such as James Madison  verified that one would be made promptly after the ratification (The Ratification of the Constitution).  Overall, the ratification process was strenuous for many reasons but the Constitution was eventually effectuated.  

Works Cited: The Ratification of the Constitution (article from class)

Why did the Articles of Confederation fail?

            The Articles of Confederation was basically the first constitution of the United States.  The Articles of Confederation failed for many reasons.  Some of the reasons that contributed to its failure were that it was weak and could not collect taxes nor amend articles with unanimous votes. The Articles of Confederation was too weak because the people of the United States wanted to do everything in their power to prevent a monarchy from occurring at this point.  Because the Articles of Confederation was too weak, it could not accomplish certain things that were necessary such as collect taxes and amend articles with unanimous votes.  Without the ability to collect taxes, the government would always be short of funds.  After the war, many debts needed to be paid and because the government could not collect taxes, paying them became a major issue.  The Articles of Confederation could had trouble amending articles because they could not do so unanimously and without nine out of the thirteen states agreeing with the possible amendment.  Because of these rules, amendments were never made and in a constantly growing and changing nation, that would have been a severe issue. Overall, the Articles of Confederation was considerably weak, leading to its inevitable downfall.

What might life be like if there was no government? Why do you think humans organized governing bodies? 

       If there were no government, life might just be chaotic. There would be no laws, causing society to grow up not knowing basic moral rights and manors. Laws are established by the government, therefore, if there were no government, there would be nothing set in place to decide what is considered worthy of punishment. 

       Murder could occur and most people would not understand why it is not an acceptable thing to do because there would be no legal consequence for such a monstrosity. Aside from having no laws enforcing human behaviors, there would also be nothing regarding how workers would be paid or even how to establish careers so the majority of society could earn money in order to live. 

       Even the earliest of humans created a form of governing leaders, from the Ancient Greek senators to the Native American chiefs because there was a mutual understanding that without this commanding authority, there would be no foundation for a way of living. People would not know how to go about doing the things we believe to be considered common. 

       The average human today wakes up in the morning in some form of dwelling and goes to work or school then attends some form of extra activity for personal enjoyment or other purposes then goes back to their dwelling to sleep and does it all over again. Without a form of government, almost nothing that the average human does on a daily basis would exist. Everything we do is in some way regulated by the government, such as the pricing of a house, the amount of money that is distributed to each person, the amount and type of cash that is printed, how much people have to pay for the good of other people, and a million more ways that decide how out civilization functions. Humans organized governing bodies because there was a mutual understanding that rules need to be set forth in order for humans to have a foundation to build on for the rest of life's opportunities.