President Barack Obama describes the current economy as frozen. He expresses that credit is not flowing as easily as it should. He addresses the issue of the rich getting richer and poorer getting poorer in this quote "an economy where the incomes of the top 1% have skyrocketed while the typical working household has seen their income decline by nearly $2,000." He proposes a the solution to stimulate the job market is to create energy efficient homes that will be built by Americans. As soon as these workers earn enough money, they can take advantage of the historically low mortgage rates. I like Obama's plan because its designed to help the economy, the middle class, and the environment. He also reiterates what the Reich's argument that our educational system does not prepare young Americans for the modern economy, just as the routine workers are not prepared to work as anything but, and wind up competing with the in person service workers. Obama also describes that we are sending too many of our experts overseas to work instead of working here and stimulating our economy, just as Reich gives all those examples of the third boat workers. Obama also addresses globalization stating that securities that were traded over seas were weak, and made those countries buy less American goods, furthering the recession in the States.

Why the rich are getting richer and poor getting poorer

Reich first addresses why the poor are getting poorer. He explains that the major reasons that middle and lower class wages are going down is simply because the national system of working has now become global one. One where its astonishingly easy to find people to work for much less than what you would pay an American worker. He states that the world population increases by 12,000 every hour, this quote appealed to his argument very well. He continues to explain that if the American worker does not have enough money to buy the goods that they produced, or used to produce, then the economy cannot flourish. He blames the lowering of the cost of transportation and communication that pretty much lead to the outsourcing of low wage jobs like the factory worker. Reich provides a wealth of examples to support his argument, many of these involve corporations that we deal with everyday which furthers the appeal of his argument. Because these corporations can find such cheaper labor, the American unions have lost all their bargaining power. He goes on to explain that although some foreign companies have been lured into building their factories in the US through promises of "tax abatements", these factories will not heal the unemployment because they are so highly automated, literally machines have taken Americans jobs. Similarly the in-person services are also being taken over by machines, the author lists "Automated tellers, computerized cashiers, auto car washes, vending machines...". I found this part of the argument quite convincing for I never bought something from a vending machine thinking that it had stolen someones job. Although he counters this point saying that in service jobs can never deplete for its human nature to want to engage other human beings. The authors "third boat" is American symbolic analysts, this one is not sinking it is steadily rising. This is where Americans find themselves with plenty of opportunities to work for foreign countries. Reich gives examples of Europe, Latin America, and the middle east. He says American energy consultants are in high demand in Arab countries. Basically the only thing that America is producing anymore that is worth something is this global economy is brilliant minds. This concept further screws the middle and lower class who used to be able to live a nice standard of living without a college diploma.

This article argues that globalisation is bad for impoverished people. The author, Oxfam, argues that the process of globalisation is redistributing the wealth in the wrong direction. One quote I found very interesting is the UN secretary general saying half the world has never used a telephone, much less a computer. This was very intriguing. Oxfam goes on to state that basically the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Oxfam also clarifies that this is in fact economically inefficient. Oxfam displays that the global market is neither good nor bad for poverty reduction although it is a system that creates winners and losers. Oxfam presents the example of Bangladesh, where thousands of jobs were created due to exports. Oxfam unveils that many rich governments that value free trade are at the same time are ripping off poor countries through protectionist barriers "cost developing countries an estimated $700 bn a year". The numbers are staggering. Oxfam discusses that aid is not the solution for these impoverished countries, the solution is to establish trade so these countries can become self sufficient. Like the saying "you can feed some one dinner for a night, or give them a fishing pole and teach them to fish". Oxfam suggests that we examine the patterns that this globalisation has created and change them to attempt to meet the 2015 targets, which is some British goal of lessened poverty. Oxfam goes on to say that Britain is a very fit country to lead this war on poverty because it is very centered in the world economy. Personally i think the gist of this argument is that we must eliminate greed from our world economy so we may better help the poor people of the world.

What reasons in the article the US was wrong could be used in both sides of the argument?
Right:- The mention of kamikaze plane attacks on the US forces.
- The Japanese mentality of "death before surrender".
-The true power that the militarists had in the Japanese government.
Wrong:- The US did not clarify the terms of a conditional surrender.
-US joint chief of staff stating that Japan was already defeated and ready to surrender.
-The quote from secretary of state Byrnes somewhat predicting the cold war.
-The fact that the president waited for the successfully test of the first a-bomb before meeting with Stalin.
-The fact that dropping the bomb gave the US a "MasterCard of diplomacy".

The main reason Connor thinks the US was right to drop the atomic bomb was that it was the solution to the war that saved the most American lives. He also argues that it actually saved more Japanese lives as well. His specific reasons involved many statistics including one that stated that a Japanese force of 15,000 was reduced to 17 on a specific island and they were still fighting. Fight to the death was the Japanese mentality. Connor argued that an invasion of the home land would result in many unnecessary Japanese deaths. Connor also appealed to his readers hearts with a vivid description of Japanese mothers killing their babies and jumping off cliffs to their death as the American forces drew near. Connor also states that although perhaps the emperor wanted peace, the militarists of the Japanese government had the real power.Connors argument was some what convincing yet because he held a position in the US military I believe that his argument was less than trustworthy. Questions for leading discussion: 1) Do you think it was necessary for the US to drop the second atomic bomb? 2) Did you find Connors gruesome imagery was effective for his argument? 3) Do you think that some of his statistics were exaggerated? 4) Did you think Connor took in to account the toll of the A-bomb after math in his argument?

What is an Enthymeme? The relationship between two or more assertions, more specifically the connection between reasons and conclusions. The mixture of ideas in such a way that there are reasons supporting the conclusion. In the seperation of reasons and conclusions it is clear that you can almost always imply either "because" or "therefore" in between the assertions. Which one all depends on the of the ideas. Enthymemes can be broken down into a conclusion, an assumption, and a stated reason.


Example of an Enthymeme: The bull should not be allowed in the china shop. It is almost certain that he will destroy all the valuables in and around his path.

A question at issue is an idea that is worth arguing to a particular or general audience. A thesis is an argument of any topic. In a written argumentitive essay, the writer would express his position on the question at issue through a thesis statement. Example of question at issue: Should illegal aliens be allowed to vote? Example of thesis: Because of global warming, the United States should take steps to protect the habitat of polar bears.