Banning firearms are good... But what about the amendment?

Recently in New York federal judges ruled that a New York gun law restricting assault weapons and large-capacity magazines was constitutional. This a benefit because it reduces violence. It can reduce drug wars by causing drug lords not to carry weapons. it can Longer minimum mandatory sentencing for repeat violent/invasive crimes and increase counseling and intervention. It also reduces military conflict and issues in schools that result in violence. All of these benefits are well needed in our government but the real question is, Are these bans constitutional?

In the second amendment its states that the United States Constitution protects the right of individual Americans to keep and bear arms regardless of if they are active in the service of the military. The right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of firearms and similar devices such as knives, clubs, or fists. So even though these bans are beneficial as far as saving money and protecting the citizens of the United States in some way it sort of conflicts with what is outlined in the constitution. Furthermore it in some ways removes the second amendment from the constitution all together. This is how we see the negative side of the gun control and the banning of fire arms. This also brings up the issues of does this even solve to problem. People who are leaning towards violence can just simply finds new ways that will help them achieve their negative goal. The banning of firearms will just cause knives and other objects to become more popular in violent acts.

Further, gun bans have failed to achieve their objectives and, even with best real estimates would take years to show any kind of significant effect. Few, if any, of the most spectacular crimes of this year would have been affected in any way by such a ban. It also must be said that the federal government hasn't given gun owners any reason over the last 100 years, let alone the last 10, to believe that the Second Amendment is anything less than an absolute necessity.

So if the government officials believe that removing the Second Amendment all together would save lives, then it should be willing to demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that it simply isn't necessary. At the end of the day people know their rights and it will be hard for the government to argue with seeing that it is written in the constitution and trying to change that will just simply take to long to process.

Ban against Same-Sex marriage UNCONSTITUTIONAL ?

In Salt Lake City, Utah there was a law that was recently banned. There ban against same sex marriages was said to unconstitutional because it conflicted with guarantees of equality and equal protection among all citizens. This effected the state of Utah so much that even an openly gay state senate vowed to not marry his partner until they are able to marry in Utah. After making this law what attributes made them decide to make this unconstitutional? Well, in the constitution it states in the fourteenth amendment that  in The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. This clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision that precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation which was the separation of humans into racial groups in daily life. This separation may  have applied to activities such as eating in a restaurant, drinking from a water fountain, using a public toilet, attending school, going to the movies, riding on a bus, or even in the rental or purchase of a home. But what a lot people seem to forget or look over is that this equal protection clause also meant the the same for many other decisions rejecting irrational or unnecessary discrimination against people belonging to various groups that excluded the issue of race.

There are several different types of state constitutional amendments banning legal recognition of same-sex unions in U.S. state constitutions, and this has been a growing trend over the years since about 1996. These laws are able to be made because lawmakers interpret the amendments to define marriage as only a union between one man and one woman which means they prevent civil unions or same-sex marriages from being legalized. But what about the opinions of the people and what if that doesn't seem very equal? This is what can cause people to feel that this is unconstitutional.

So what makes this unconstitutional is that it can come off to people who agree on same sex marriage that they aren't being treated equally or the same as people who agree on marriage of the opposite sex. They feel that they will possibly be deprived of the the same rights as others who look at what they are doing as wrong. So with these strong opinions floating around it is easy to recognize how these laws can seem unfair and also unconstitutional to the outlines of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution

obama care and expansion of medicare

The Affordable Care Act website is finally up and running, but hospitals are closing.  What is going on?  Republican leaders in 25 of the 50 states are refusing to expand Medicaid.  When what has come to be known as Obamacare was passed, along with it, subsidies for uninsured patients were cut, in anticipation that the states would expansion of Medicaid would take up the slack.  However, on the contrary, in states that have Republican leadership, there has been a resistance to expanding Medicaid.  Ironically, the same people who bellow about strengthening states’ rights and getting the federal government out of their business, have the power to alleviate the problems in their state by expanding Medicaid.  Though there is really no downside to not expanding Medicaid, the perception is that Republicans are refusing free federal money to spite the President. 

As time goes by, more and more hospitals will shut their doors and with them thousands of jobs will be lost to our economy.  Of course, the mortality rate is bound to increase among the uninsured citizens of Republican-controlled states such as Texas, Georgia and Florida.  The effect of this alone on the economy is obvious, because dead men (and women) tell no tales, buy no products, hold no jobs nor do anything else that increases the nation’s GDP. Also, as hospitals close, to the chagrin of ACA proponents, the supply of available healthcare service will diminish and the price of healthcare will most likely rise.  There will also be a reduction in productivity as people lose time from work to travel to where they can receive healthcare service.  In Sally Kohn’s article she mentions a story reported in Bloomberg News about Pam Renshaw.  Ms. Renshaw had an accident in her four-wheeler and sustained second and third degree burns on half her body.  Her local hospital has closed in Folkston, Georgia, so poor Ms. Renshaw, in pain from her injuries, had on travel two hours to a hospital in Florida for treatment.

Most of the “endangered” hospitals are in rural areas, the redder part of the red states where the hospital is not only the major source of healthcare but could possibly be one of the community’s largest employers.  As these hospitals close, the affect could be like a wrecking ball on commerce of the entire community.  It scares me to think of what would happen if the Terrell State Hospital closed.  Not only would thousands of patients be displaced, but the entire town would look like a ghost town of the Old West in a matter of weeks because the hospital employers such a large number of the town’s citizens.   

Shut down causes increase

After the government shutdown people had a uniform guess to how it was going to effect the economy. People expected the economy to suffer and cause prices to rise. They also felt that this would put a halt to job creation and job availability. But according to CNN this hypothesis is indeed wrong. For the month month of October it actually shows that there was a job increase in the economy. This recent increase in jobs makes it seem as if there was ever a government shutdown in the first place and people are less worried about the outcome. 

So how many jobs were added to turn around the possible outcome? Well the US economy added 204,000 jobs to the market which was way above the expectancy of the job growth. Since they added so many jobs , what made economist and citizens doubt this growth in the first place? If it has done so well what made them concerned about the outcome? What made them concerned what the budget of the economy. What caused the shutdown what budget battles in Washington. The battles led to about 800,000 federal employees being out of work. 

So what does this increase do for things like the bank? Well it makes the banks try to do thinks that will get their customers to spend money and not try to save it. Interest rates are very low around the developed world; near-zero in nominal terms and negative in real terms. This is part of a deliberate policy by central banks to discourage saving and encourage borrowing. It has also been seen as a way of boosting the stockmarket and thus as creating a wealth effect for individuals, and boosting confidence. So this increase in jobs makes the bank make decisions that cause the economy to be more equitable of fair to the people.

So though people the thought that the decision of the government were harmful and selfish and could also cause a lot of clean up, the decision actually was some what helpful to the coming rather than harmful. The decisions of the Fed impact, literally, every financial decision you make. The Federal Reserve has its fingers in your pocketbook to a greater degree than the IRS.The Fed's mission is to encourage as much economic growth as possible without raising inflation. The Fed has a dual mandate. They want to have low and steady inflation and a strong labor market.

 

Senior 2014 social security decrease

As much as I would have liked this article to be about senior of 2014 in high school getting money this happens to be a about the senior citizens of 2014 in our government and society. Based on the article it says that seniors of 2013 will see and decrease in their social security by the year 2014. They're saying that instead of having the increase to 1.7%  like we had this year, they will only have a 1.5% coverage by social security this year. The question is how this affect the senior citizens knowing that the benefit so much from social security?  Will this effect be good of bad? Well first we have to see how do they benefit from social security.

How senior citizens benefit from social security:

1) Social Security is the major source of income for most of the elderly.

This means that the elderly people that have retired can still get a check that helps to support their necessities even though they don't have a paying job anymore. 

2) Social Security provides more than just retirement benefits.

Tho means that elderly people who are diabled can still get benefits that can assist them with there healthcare needs. Also Survivors of deceased workers account for about 11% of total benefits paid.

3) An estimated 161 million workers, 94% of all workers, are covered under Social Security. 

This means 51% of the workforce has no private pension coverage. This also means 34% of the workforce has no savings set aside specifically for retirement.

Lastly social security has proven to increase life expectancy. For example In 1940, the life expectancy of a 65-year-old was almost 14 years; today it is more than 20 years. By 2033, the number of older Americans will increase from 45.1 million today to 77.4 million. There are currently 2.8 workers for each Social Security beneficiary. By 2033, there will be 2.1 workers for each beneficiary. 

With these facts we can see that though this decrease is beneficial to the taxpayers it won't be beneficial to the senior citizens. In other words decrease in taxes means and decrease in coverage and resources for senior citizens in 2014. Small businesses will increase on employment but this means that it will be harder for the senior citizens to get important things like healthcare that is largely influenced by the social security. 

How much did the 16 day shutdown cost?

As we are all aware, after 16 days, the government has been reopened. The government experienced a shutdown this year because the Republicans and Democrats of the House couldn't agree on a spending plan for the fiscal year that started as they wrangled over Obama care. With federal employees not being paid, how much did this whole situation cost? Well, though this only occurred over a short period of time, the US government was hit with about a $24 billion dollar debt to the GDP. In other words, the US economy has been hurt by the shutdown. Workers of the federal government will be affected along with the prices of resources and entertainment for the people (gas, restaurants, vacations, etc.)

                Where was this $24 billion dollar debt lost in? About $3.1 billion was lost in government or public services. This means that a large portion was lost in the businesses that supply an essential commodity. These commodities are things such as water or electricity, or a service, such as communications (telephone or cellphone) or transportation (buses and trains), to the public in their homes or places where they work.  About $152 million a day (or about $2.4 billion in all 16 days) was lost in the US travel association.  The US Travel Association is used to help people travel on their jobs or for educational purposes. So this money was lost mostly by people who work and study abroad in other countries.

                About $13 million a day (or $208 million in all 16 days) locally, or in the communities of the people, and $76 million a day ($1.2 billion in all 16 days was lost due to national parks. National parks are simply to entertain the people of society. It’s shocking that something that is just simply for the people to enjoy caused the economy to lose so much money during the government shutdown. Lastly $6.2 billion was lost in tourism. This is another act that is just simply for the people of society to be entertained.

                So, as shown above, the government 16 day shut cost more than just employees of the federal government not being paid. It affected the people and the activities that they do every day. These low cost and inexpensive activities turned out to be a huge debt to the economy. Though the government feels that in 90 days the economy should be back to where it was it is still a pondering situation to figure out where and how they are going to make up the debt. This has caused people to really feel that this government shutdown was not a good or smart idea

Advertisement and how it's effects the people.

Advertisement is a notice or announcement in a public medium promoting a product, service, or, event. Though these are supposed to be used to help people, most advertisements of today's society tend to be more of a "gimmick" rather than a helpful took. 

Advertisers use different strategies like free giveaways, discounts or even travel opportunities to appeal to people to gain customers. For example, let's say a cruise is being given away. Advertisers show first a beautiful photo to appeal to the eye of the people. This increases the peoples desire to want to go there because they are pulled in by beauty. 

Next they try to include free things they will receive if they take the trip knowing that people of today's society focusing on saving money for buying resources. If they don't have to pay for supplies of a resource it increases there demand to go on the trip. 

Next they show people who have done it before or testimonials. People tend to trust things and spend money on things that they seen people do or enjoy, especially if they know the people. People do not want to things that will make them unhappy. So seeing someone on the cover of a magazine smiling and relaxing appeals to the buyer and increases the desire of getting the buyer to want to go on the cruise.

Also advertisers use the need vs want situation. They advertise it as being something that they need that way it will look more important to them and they will focus on it even more instead of brushing it to the side. Most people, especially in hard economic times, focus on there needs which means that they are not going to be looking at traveling. So I order to get the people to buy this trip they advertise this as some place they need to go that will better them or help them release stress and make there life better.

All of these examples are ways advertisers use "gimmicks" to get people to make choices on whether to get people to spend there money on things that they really don't need. Without advertisements people would probably focus on there needs rather then there wants and desires that entertain them.