The presidency of Jimmy Carter (1977-1980) attempted to “recapture a disillusioned citizenry” but was held back by Carter’s conformity to the political boundaries of the American system. While Carter’s term seemed to dig him into a hole as well as complicate matters for everyday people, the Reagan-Bush presidency “transformed the federal judiciary, never more than moderately liberal, into a predominately conservative institution,” (Zinn 574). Corporate America quickly became the greatest beneficiary of the Reagan-Bush years, and the concern for “the economy, which was a short-hand term for corporate profit” dominated any concern for the lower and middle class. All while the quality of life was degrading and the environment rotting. While Reagan-Bush did manage to enforce several Acts for the benefit of the people, with the Gulf War and other economic/environmental calamities, their presidencies seemed to leave a bitter taste in the mouths of Americans.
His stance is that Americans should take notice of “the realities of outsourced manufacturing, financialization of the economy, and growing income disparity.” He does not propose any action against the rich, but instead provides information that demonstrates his negative thoughts towards the 1% richest Americans. Mike Lofgren’s ideology and stance about the wealthiest citizens is something I have in common with him. This article has provided me more inspiration to change the state of America’s economy in a positive manner, at least positive for the 99%. His statistics have provided me with insight about how truly unethical the United States’ government is, and while reading this article inspires the reader to take action against such dishonest
Justin Wallace History 112 J Woodrow Wilson Many people believe that Woodrow Wilson was a straight forward idealist who wanted a utopian world view for society. People point to his Nobel Peace Prize and famous 14 Points, and write him off as just another liberal democrat. Few people take into account the personal journey that led him to the values and beliefs he held. I would venture to argue that Wilson was a complex president and his liberal values of economic regulation and diplomacy are very important today. A left leaning president who came from a very complicated political world view.
The continued power grab will destroy the capitalist system shackling the limbs of the free market. The regulation imposed creates factions limiting the ease of market entry. The environment that our American business calls home must remain competitive assuring quality goods to consumers while encouraging technological advancements. The path our federal government is currently on is a path of non-democratic regulation that is a threat to the growth and prosperity of our country. It is simply a matter of the true meaning of the Constitution, specifically the commerce clause that must be addressed.
This statement is a rather generalized one; to consider that all citizens in a democracy live off desires is foolish. However there is some application in the statement when one considers that the modern western economy today makes vast amounts of money by catering towards peoples desires. Furthermore it is arguable to say that the worst among these drones has become leader. Consider George W. Bush, the current president of the United States. He practiced a long life of drinking and drugging prior to his presidency.
He insists they would not eat as much if they knew that it was bad for them or if the industry put nutrition labels on their food. My outlook on this topic varied significantly from that of Zinczenko’s. I feel that it is not the fault of the fast food company. Neither would I put blame on the younger children who eat fast food. I would put most of the culpability on the parents who do not teach their kids how to maintain a healthy lifestyle and buy their children unhealthy food. I disagree completely that we as Americans suffer from lack of information about nutrition in fast food.
For decades, scholars have insisted that what most of us know instinctively to be true -- is false. Mocking the belief that individuals such as Julius Caesar, Adolf Hitler or Winston Churchill make history, experts focus on social forces. They explain the past with statistical studies and abstract theories, dismissing stories about individual initiative or heroism. While powerful economic, social and ideological movements dwarfing any individual do shape history, be it the high-tech boom, feminism or the rise of conservatism, we cannot underestimate the way a leader's action and inaction can change the world. Especially when assessing the American presidency and modern America, individual character -- and contingency -- count.
My personal view is that the national debt has always depended upon Rock n' Roll to a certain extent, but now more that ever. A sharp down turn in middle class investment may lead to changes in the market. Political Factors No man is an island, but what of politics? Looking at the spectrum represented by a single political party can be reminiscent of comparing the two sides of Rock n' Roll. To quote award winning journalist Xaviera Shandy 'Taking a walk across hot coals will inevitably hurt your feet.'
It is ultimately up to the consumer to make the decision of what to put into their bodies. Without a healthy alternative, little to no nutritional information, and the ease and convenience of fast food why would we choose anything else? The fact is that we have been conditioned as children to eat fast food. We also see the ease of a drive trough and think of it as a great convenience to the alternative of cooking for you at home. American’s are always on the go and fast food corporations have exploited that fact to the extreme.
The following essay will cover both Marx’s and Weber’s view on capitalism and how it has affected social class throughout history whilst comparing them. It will first outline each view then continue to compare. Both Karl Marx and Max Weber wrote extensively on capitalism, its origins and its future. Although there are a very few small points that they agreed on, for the most part, they strongly disagreed. Only when the analysis of their main differences is looked at, can a stronger and broader understanding of capitalism be reached.