Blog 8. Respond to a college. :)

Hi Sean

I would like to answer to your blog post by saying that vaping is bad for everyone, even after 21. I don't understand how something so harmful for one’s health is out for sale legally. I’ve ignored the FDA was not as involved as it should be. I thought that everything was okay with the e-cigarette since it’s out for sale. I strongly believe that vaping is horrible. Just by now, how many victims of vaping have died. I’m glad some things are getting done for this matter to be investigated and/or regulated.  

Government most definitely should be involved and make sure at least these companies are being investigated. Your point about hoping for the FDA to stop the sale of the e-cigarette is good but, it’s only going to cause the drug dealers to have more business. I mean yes, this cigarette is awful but, if FDA prohibits their sale guess what is going to happen. I would say, for the FDA to create a lot more restrictions and tests before allowing it to keep killing people.

Healthcare for all! Blog 7

Hello again 

I am extending my post about Senator Elizabeth Warren  proposition about the “Health care for all” initiative she has in her campaign.

As lovely as it may sound I totally disagree with some of her points she is planing to do ignorer to make this happen.

For example, these are the kind of things she is saying to make this plan of hers happened;“To pay for it, she has proposed large new taxes, transfer payments and some cuts to government spending.'' How is this going to be a good and better balance for everyone?

First of all if she raise taxes then it would still be the same because if we are cutting money in the health field but then you will have bigger expenses on your taxes. it does not make a lot of sense?

The second thing she mentions is about cutting funds for the health field. If she does this then the health field would be so much worse than it is now. All the things that every health program include will be in a much worse position to provide for us, therefore all our benefits will be so bad even worse than before.

The third thing she mentions is that she would cut federal funding. How exactly would that help the people? Just now we are having so much representatives using federal money for they own benefit of been reelected. If she does this then it would affect all other programs that are been provided for people that really needs them like special people. Funding to help live because they are not able to work. 

In conclusion, yes it would be amazing to have a healthcare that covers all in the same way but, under those circumstances does not sounds like it would benefit us at all since she would be affecting us in other areas like the taxes and federal funding.

Stage Six Post.

Laura's Blog Post

Hey Laura, 

As a mother I agree with on your first request, when you are talking about the extension of maternity leave for mothers from twelve weeks to sixteen weeks. I have heard of mothers that struggle on making the decision to use some of that time before the birth or just wait until the last minute after they have their baby. In the first place if all of this maternity privilege is about the mother and the baby, the mother the last month of the pregnancy is feeling miserable. She should not have to decide to just wait until the baby arrives to gets some rest. I strongly think that at least the last two weeks if possible the mother to be should be resting and getting ready for labor.

I'm not to sure about your second request. As much as I would love to get paid for that time, I think that would be something a little harder to get. I do agree with your point especially with single mothers or families with low income that for starters that is why low income families begin with the pregnancy because of not so cheap anticonceptives. I would love to see a change about this. Life is already too hard sometimes and there is only so much we can do to help others.

On your third request I also agree with you, but honestly this is not about the government, it is mostly about the cheap companies that want to cover that for their employees. My husband works for AT&T as a Prompt Tech and when I gave birth to my last baby on July 28, 2018,  my husband was allowed to stay home with us with paid parental leave for a whole month. So, I think The FMLA totally approves it but the stingy companies are the ones not wanting to pay for that.

Blog five. Personal Opinion on a Goverment article by Claudia Chavez

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/01/upshot/elizabeth-warrens-medicare-for-all-math.html

Even if she really try to implement it, will the people end up paying more taxes just to make this work?

Senator Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts, is running for the presidency in the 2020 elections. She believes that she can implement a healthcare system with one cost for everyone.

It does sound like a great idea in general, because a lot of low/mid income families will benefit from it. 

As much I personally want this to be implemented, how much is this going to cost? She says one price for all, but we go back to another issue. We don't all have the same amount of money. Would she do it with equality or we want this to be done with equity for everyone?

If this system gets implemented it would only be fair for everyone to have the same type of healthcare which is what she is talking about. What about about pricing? Would it be the same for all? 

I think it should be depending on how much each family pay.

Another issue that we can questions is, will general taxes be raised?

It makes me think for a second that this has really great intention but, if she really wants this to happen she will need to put a lot of work into it. It’s a great idea but I think she still needs to work on her plan to go through with it.

Criticizing Mr. Gerson’s opinion. By: Claudia Chavez P. (Blog Stage Four)

Beto O’Rourke’s church taxation proposal would hand Trump reelection

4fbde20c-eeac-11e9-89eb-ec56cd414732_story.html

I would like to start by saying, when Trump was running for president he was saying the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard and yet he won. Up until this point he still talks unnecessary trash about concepts as a spoiled child trying to get his way. 

Now, Mr. Gerson goes and writes his opinions about O’Rourke choice of campaign statements. A lot of people thought that Trump was the greatest of all and voted for him. In the same way that people supported Trump, there could be a lot of people that is supporting O’Rourke. Mr. Gerson can go ahead and criticized all he wants. He does not know who will win the 2020 elections. There is a very good amount of people that are ready to confiscate AR-15’s as well as others that support gay marriages. I don't see why those people won't support O’Rourke in all his ideas. At least he is making ideas to go and shoot immigrants in the legs. 

I do have to agree with Mr. Gerson in one thing only. There is something that the church doesn’t support the state,meaning that the church has the privilege of not paying taxes. I think the season for this is because the church is a non-profit organization. If O’Rourke starts taxing the churches because they don’t support gay marrige, how much the churches are going to be able to help the poor. We know the churches play a big role in those kind of helps provided to the communities. This would be my only concern about O’Rourke’s plan.

In conclusion, people will support O’Rourke no matter what. He is not setting any kind of failure for himself. My thought is, who support the church? The rich. At the end whoever is controlling who goes into the throne is mostly the rich. If the gun rich wanted the gun control to pass it would already be done.

“Criticizing Mr. Blow’s opinion.” By Claudia Chavez

“Criticizing Mr. Blow’s opinion.”

 I would like to start by saying that this is my first time reading someone's opinion 

criticizing the president.

Since is all in the news I assume everyone is going to be talking about the impeachment. 

Well, Charles M. Blow paid very close attention to the impeachment situation but, most importantly he was watching the president’s reaction about this whole situation.

His argument is very good. He is saying that it looks like the president feels threatened by this situation and is in defensive mode. He is not acting up or throwing insults to the immigrants. Why is that Mr. president? He is more concerned about his  position in the white house that any other thing right now. 

Here is some evidence of how Blow is seeing the president, “Donald Trump is scared. And he is incensed that he is scared. And his only impulse is to fight like a thing near death: with everything he has, and by all means necessary” (Blow). Is the president guilty? Is he innocent? Nobody is 100% sure of that answer, but what I do know is that if he is innocent why would he be getting this kind of attitude. He is trying to make america great again? Is this his way to make america great again? If it is, I totally disagree with mr. President, this is the worst thing that he could have done and he knows it.

In conclusion, there is a lot of evidence that he committed treason. This actions towards his impeachment he can not control it and that is what's making him act like this.

trump-impeachment.html

Charles M. Blow

Columnist

“Judge Halts California Law that Requires Tax Returns to put Trump on Ballot" - Claudia Chavez

I read an article called “Judge Halts California Law that Requires Tax Returns to put Trump on Ballot,” located in the next link:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/09/20/donald-trump-tax-returns-california-new-york/2383531001/

  While 2020 elections are around the corner we see some controversial tax returns issues concerning the President of the United States. This is a requirement since he is running for President again in the 2020 elections. 

In California, Democrats are urging to check the last five years of the President’s tax returns since they believe there is critical financial information. Democrats are also worried about his business, that can be considered important for the people to know.

However, in the west coast of California, a federal judge granted the request from Trump’s campaigns that blocks the law against the President of the United States. 

In the State of California And attorney said in the next words, 

“We remain firm in our belief that SB 27 is constitutional and provides invaluable transparency for voters as they decide who will hold the most powerful office in the United States,” (Pandilla).

In conclusion, what should we expect from our candidates? We want to be well informed and want transparency from who we vote for.