President Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday, opening a new front in his battle against former President Obama's environmental legacy. The order is a broad assault on key aspects of Obama's climate change policies, and dramatically alters the government's approach to rising sea levels and temperatures- two impacts of climate change. The administration believes the government can both serve the environment and increase energy by urging the EPA to focus on what the administration believes its core mission: clean air and clean water. Here is an article of the CNN news of Trumps executive order, "Trump dramatically changes U.S approach to climate change"
I agree with president Trump's order to decrease the amount of pollution in the air, and provide clean air. I'm assuming that limiting pollution in the air would improve our environment. President Trump is also protecting American jobs, even though some of these factories had made pollution in our air, Trump is trying to reduce the amount of pollution without people losing their jobs. Trump has been clear that he wouldn't pursue climate change policies that put U.S economy at risk.
Also by limiting pollution in the air can make a better change for our health, and decrease climate change. The White House went on to argue the best way to protect the environment is to have a strong economy, and not like the countries of China and India that do less to protect their environment, we can save more peoples lives by reducing toxins in the air. Also it can benefit future generations such as grandchildren, so they can have a clean air to breath.
Wednesday, March 29, 2017
Thursday, March 9, 2017
No wonder the Republicans Hid the Health Bill
On Tuesday, March 7, 2017, the New York Times published an article titled No wonder the Republicans Hid the Health Bill.
In the article, "No wonder the Republicans Hid the Health Bill," by the Editorial Board, mentions the Republican plan to replace the Affordable Care Act is not making progress, and they're hiding it to the general public because they can't find a better way to replace it. The argument being made in this editorial is that the Republicans are trying to make a law that would apply a per-person limit on how much the federal government spends on Health Care Insurance. The provided evidence informs the intended audience why this new law is a bad idea, "This change could shift about 370 billion of dollars in health care costs over 10 years to state governments." Many state governments will have to face limited budgets, and be forced to cut benefits or cover fewer people.
The article, attempts to hook the reader's attention by providing some in depth information about the American Health Care Act Law. Also the author's use their knowledge to provide numerous statistics when they mention the comparison between the Affordable Care Act (Obama care) and the new American Health Care Act Law. They provide credibility with their well-informed evidence that leads the reader to accept their point.
Overall the author's arguments that were made in the article were strong enough because they were well explained, and back up with good evidence. Their evidence towards their statement were brilliant. This article was written to inform the intended audience about what would happen if the Republicans pass this new law, even though they still haven't come up with a workable replacement
In the article, "No wonder the Republicans Hid the Health Bill," by the Editorial Board, mentions the Republican plan to replace the Affordable Care Act is not making progress, and they're hiding it to the general public because they can't find a better way to replace it. The argument being made in this editorial is that the Republicans are trying to make a law that would apply a per-person limit on how much the federal government spends on Health Care Insurance. The provided evidence informs the intended audience why this new law is a bad idea, "This change could shift about 370 billion of dollars in health care costs over 10 years to state governments." Many state governments will have to face limited budgets, and be forced to cut benefits or cover fewer people.
The article, attempts to hook the reader's attention by providing some in depth information about the American Health Care Act Law. Also the author's use their knowledge to provide numerous statistics when they mention the comparison between the Affordable Care Act (Obama care) and the new American Health Care Act Law. They provide credibility with their well-informed evidence that leads the reader to accept their point.
Overall the author's arguments that were made in the article were strong enough because they were well explained, and back up with good evidence. Their evidence towards their statement were brilliant. This article was written to inform the intended audience about what would happen if the Republicans pass this new law, even though they still haven't come up with a workable replacement
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)