The Speech Heard Around The World

     In an article written by Sara Ruthnum entitled "Michelle Obama's Speech Was Exactly What We Needed To Hear" we are told about the powerful speech the First Lady's gave on why Trump should not only not be elected as the next President of the United States and that Hillary Clinton should be, but also the damage that he has caused in our society throughout his campaigning. She was trying to reach out to all voters, but she was more specifically talking to women voters. Her main points were Trumps blatant sexist remarks, his degrading of women and his openness on his sexual assault and predatorial actions towards women.
   “The fact is that, in this election, we have a candidate for president of the United States who over the course of his lifetime, and the course of this campaign, has said things about women that are so shocking, so demeaning that I simply will not repeat anything here today. And last week, we saw this candidate actually bragging about sexually assaulting women. I can’t believe that I’m saying that a candidate for president of the United States has bragged about sexually assaulting women. And I have to tell you that I can’t stop thinking about this. It has shaken me to my core in a way that I couldn’t have predicted.”
     I mean that alone should have placed Trump unfit to even be a candidate for the presidency, but no like all his other skeletons that have come out throughout this election people are rallying right along side him. He has turned American society back to a time where women were treated as objects and seen as nothing else. He has turned societies thoughts backwards instead of pushing them forward like a future leader should be doing. This is why her speech has become so powerful because everything said is hard fact proven every day by Trump's actions. I agree with Ruthnum that Hillary Clinton will most likely win this election year, but that damage left by Trump's campaigning will be something that will remain in our society long after Hillary Clintons presidency. 

Could Trump be the answer?

      In an article by Peter Navarro and Wilbur Ross entitled "How Trump would stimulate the U.S. economy" that was published on September 23, 2016, they discuss how Trump's plan would be growth-inducing for the U.S. economy. Authors describe different strategies of Trump which would stimulate U.S. economy. The argument that Peter Navarro and Wilbur Ross both make is on how Hillary Clinton's economic plan would not improve the U.S. economy, unlike Trump's plan that would generate millions of jobs and trillions of dollars in income and in tax revenue for the economy. Both Peter Navarro and Wilbur Ross are very knowledgeable about this subject, which gives more credit to their view in the article. Wilbur Ross is an international private equity investor, Peter Navarro is a business professor at UC-Irvine and both are senior policy advisers to the Trump campaign. In the article they give lots of evidence to prove their claims, some examples being how they show statistics of GDP growth since from 1947, and that 43 million Americans suffer in poverty and 4.9 percent unemployment rate in the US leads to nearly 1 in 6 men ages 18 to 34 in jail or out of work.
       “Hillary Clinton’s economic plan would not improve this anemic growth or heal other economic ills. It would raise taxes, increase regulation, and impose further restrictions on fossil fuels that would significantly raise energy and electricity costs. Clinton would also perpetuate trade policies she helped craft that have led to chronic and debilitating trade deficits. All this points in the wrong direction.
        Even Clinton’s centerpiece stimulus plan is growth-inhibiting. It would tax businesses to fund a highly leveraged national infrastructure bank. This approach would shift funds from the more efficient private sector to a less efficient government bureaucracy and introduce high-risk, subprime lending to the government.”
        On the contrast Peter Navarro and Wilbur Ross claim that Trump's plan would realign corporate incentives so that it would be more profitable to invest in the United States by describing four components which would drive every nation's GDP and as the United States structural economic problems are primarily focused on the investment and net exports growth drivers and they also claim that Trump's plan of cutting the high corporate tax rate, reducing unnecessary regulation and cracking down on trade cheating would make U.S. corporation competitive on domestic soil. While Peter Navarro and Wilbur Ross gave lots of evidence to prove their claims, I do not agree with Trump being the only way to improve it, one person can not improve something as large as the U.S. economy it takes everyone as a whole.