Everything is a trade

I found a link to the article I found about immigration and the article you gave us about inequality, liberty, and the pursuit of mobility. Both articles talk about immigration, one uses it as a starting point, the other one uses it as the main point to explain the reasons why Chinese immigrate to the United States. The common point in both articles is the United States is a land of abundant opportunities and freedom which mention in the article as " you can be anything you want." America is a free country but at some point, this freedom seems too much and miss out equality yet nothing is completely fair to everyone.

Based on my limited understanding of the article, more inequality brings less mobility for those high-income countries and it's opposite for those low-income countries. If the inequality can not be changed for now then make choices wisely before immigrate. If you can't change your current life it's ok because you already survived. I can't think of other solution for this problem than making a change for it.

I don't agree with those people who immigrate took the opportunities of local people because the compete is equal. If the company hire a person who immigrates here but not you. It doesn’t mean that person take your chance but you are not good as him. The mobility of immigration is huge between China and America not only because of we go to your country but also you come to my country for the attractive culture and history. I see this as a trade just like trading money and one of these two countries will be the biggest winner which won't need to mention because we can see that China's GDP is going upward unexpected quickly for me. I think the immigration trade is one of the reason raises our GDP because the money exchange rate between our countries is different which means Americans pay less to consume in China.  For example, both Chinese and Americans have a hundred RMB and dollars. The Chinese need to pay thirty-five RMB for twenty apples but Americans only need to five dollars for them. It is a benefit for Americans. ( I know apples are not that expensive Bicknell.)

This brings to the original point, inequality. Martin Luther King's amazing speech brings freedom to the United States. I think the article is hoping people can stand up for their equality of job opportunities, liberty, and all just like what MLK did. However, this generation is different which also hint in the same article by pointing out the difference between the growth of new business and the old business steady. People are getting lazy and fragile, a people is defeated only by one failure. Did MLK give his speech easily in that generation? Using my partial understating of US national conditions, maybe Obama is the one who fed the pigs. Although his original intention was good.

 Nothing can be changed in the past, Donald Trump is the president of the United States. At least he almost his life on money and still is, maybe, let's expect his action of saving this great country by starting to build the wall. (Did it really fell?)

https://www.pri.org/stories/2012-12-21/why-chinese-immigrants-choose-america

Trump!

An inauguration costs a lot for both the government and people, I rather let the government uses the money to help the country not only for a one-time ceremony even though it's traditional. I have at least two reasons for my thoughts. The first one is, there are many protestors to Trump which means the weight on security will be heavy and the costs for personnel will be huge like what the article already mentioned. However, the costs for personnel are not only for security but also for the swear in which is the set up for this ce22remony in my understanding. The cost for personnel to set this up is already a lot not even including the security cost are $102 million for the government to pay. Put on the other hand, although there are many protestors, not all of them will go pull Trump under the ground which means the government might be paying $102 million for not as many people as they expecting which might be a waste of money that can make some other significant things happening.

I didn't watch the ceremony yesterday but I heard it was pretty good. Although it only costs 50 dollars to watch but the audiences were much less than 2009, Obama's inauguration. I can understand why Trump wants his inauguration big and fancy because he was fighting against Hilary who spent her life for political. He becomes the new president of the United States when he is almost seventy years old. I admire Trump's ability to make this happen even he spent most his life in the business department.

No matter what, I think people should at least respect Trump. Yes, many people think he is racist, he is disrespectful to women but be thankful that your president is not Hilary who "wants" to make your country better but never obey her words.


In my opinion, Trump is using this inauguration to tell people his authority and his desire to make this country better. Yet most people still put question marks for his behavior and character. At least, he is building the wall like what he said. Look back to Obama's inauguration, people that show up in Trump's are like half of Obama's. People like Obama that much but what he did? I'm not saying that he did nothing but what I know the most is he fed lazy people by using those hard working people's money. Homeless people can do nothing but still, have the chance to use iPhones? Hilary is trying to do the same thing as Obama even worse she is using your money to feed your enemy that caused "911". Which do you prefer? Singers and actors don't even want to show up in this ceremony because it is related to their future. I think it is sad because they have nothing to do with Trump got selected but that's what all American deserve because he is your selected president.

This ceremony means a new beginning of the United States and the world. I think it's worth expecting. I'm not a Trump supporter, I am just showing my personal opinion to what is going on in America.
(I have more to say but I want to post it first)

Money

According to the article, I found out that the U.S. federal budget expenditure is divided into 3 parts: Mandatory spending, Discretionary spending, and Interest on debt. Mandatory spending includes social security insurance expenditure, medical insurance expenditure for elderly retirees and food stamps for the use of the poor. Now it renamed "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). However, mandatory spending needs to become a legal form of legislation and then based on the law to implement the expenditure. Thus, the increase or decrease of SNAP needs to have a long period of time (a few years or even 10 years) of the cumbersome legislation and amendment process.

Discretionary spending is about each year after the Congress through the following 5 steps to determine the amount of each sub-item. So it approves one time every single year. Comparing to mandatory spending, its development progress becomes apparently much easier. In general, a year before the end of October, the US Congress has passed the budget for next year (the federal budget year on October 31st as the deadline). A few years ago, congress could not be timely through the budget so the federal government departments of the phenomenon led to a closing which caused an exception.

Also, I want to simply talk about the benefits of trump to reduce the company’s tax to 15%. Now America's corporate tax is 35%, it is higher than the rate in many other countries. This leads to a problem which is the International large companies headquarters will not show much interested in the United States. They will more likely put the headquarter is in a country who has a low tax rate so they can earn more money by costing the same workforce.
Consider this, you work for a big company with a good amount of money but 35% of your money are owned by your country. If you have the ability to work aboard in some other countries who have the lower tax rate, why wouldn't you go to those countries? The United States debt are high and its income is mostly coming from taxing people high and the is spends a lot for those who don't want to work. Why should you work like a bull everyday and let the lazy pigs enjoy your fruits?

One of the reason why I would vote for Trump is How Trump can reform the current Obama Care system is one of the focus of public concern. He considered allowing health insurance companies to cross state competition after the abolition of Obama Care. And all health care costs will be deducted from personal tax payment. It may promote “health saving account” of tax cuts and subsidies to make the public are able to afford to buy health care. Although the Congress announced that it will replace Obama Care to improve people’s lives, this desire is hard to reach without more federal funds. It depends on whether the Republicans want to pay more for better health care or to cut federal spending.

In conclusion, if the new government reduce federal spending and abolish Obama Care, it will increase the number of people without health insurance. How they will do to make people who already have health insurance do not lose health insurance is the focus of attention.

GDP

As everyone known, the United States is one of the most powerful countries in the world which the PDF has proved. This PDF gives me a different view to the United States because its GDP is much higher than I thought and a country's high GDP not only shows how wealthy this country is but also shows how wealthy its people are measuring by how much workforce it spent per person.






Eighteen trillion dollars sounds unbelievable to me but it's also understandable. California did a great job on its GDP per person because compare it to France, it takes France 32 percent more to be the same as it, a state. However, compare Taxes to Canada, Taxes spent half more workforce than Canada to become the second one of the top ten state economy. New York only used 9.2 million workers which were three times smaller than South Korea's workforce and still had the same GDP. It is not hard to see that those who live in California and New York had lower GDP per person than those in Taxes which means the states and those people who live in the states are wealthier than those live in Taxes.

After the major information, the other information also proves the GDP per person in the United States is high which means America can receive other countries' fruit of labor by using fewer workers but in my opinion it can't actually evaluate the living standard of a country instead of to just make a hypothesis of it because ninety plus ninety divided by two is equal to one plus a hundred and seventy-nine divided by two. The average number can't tell what the fact is. Even though the average living standard of America might be pretty high, there are still many poor Americans. Therefore, there might not be that many high quality living standard Americans as the average shown. 

High GDP does show a country's level of creativity and productivity but if a country's profit can not match its creativity and productivity, that is still a loss of money and workforce. If a company pay a hundred dollars to make a bottle but it only coats ten dollars for customers to buy, it is a waste, and same to a country.


As a result, everything has two sides, high GDP doesn't always mean good to a country, it maybe the opposite. It's not good to only pursue GDP because it consumes sources and energy.