English Paper

[hotlikesauce.]

Could someone proofread this for me and see if I missed anything? Not really looking for a debate, just quality of writing critique.


                                     If There Are Only Two Parties in America, I Do Not Want to Go to Either
   Republicans are for the rich. Democrats are for the poor. If we are not Democrats, we must be Republicans. If we are not Republicans, we must be Democrats. In our current political atmosphere, everything is polarized. If we are not on one side, we must be on the completely opposite side. Room does not exist for a moderate American voter. In recent elections, more voters are becoming independent, voting based on the issues instead of by party. These few voters have realized that our two-party system of politics is not working, because corruption is bred on both sides of the fence. The two-party system we have in place fuels and encourages corruption in even our most promising leaders, ignores and suppresses third parties, and unlike before, makes not voting seem like a viable option.
   The most prominent party of the last 30 years has been the Republican Party, with notable figures such as Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and his son, George W. Bush. They have spread a message of small federal government, lower taxes, and deregulation. They are not in favor of government intervention or social welfare programs. Ronald Reagan, who had members of Wall Street in his cabinet, deregulated the banks which made their profits soar. There is an obvious conflict of interest with this political move. As explained by Michael Moore in “Capitalism: A Love Story,â€� this is directly responsible for the eventual economic crisis that occurred with the banks in 2009 and the housing bubble popping in 2008. As a result, many Americans lost their jobs and houses because of a single, selfish act of corruption.
   Republicans are in favor of SuperPACs, or Political Action Committees. These committees act as a third party to fund raising for candidates. Instead of donating directly to candidates, private donors can donate unlimited amounts of money to, for example, Mitt Romney's SuperPAC, which will in turn donate the money to the Mitt Romney campaign. This way, donors can remain completely anonymous to voters and the news media. If billionaires were to donate millions of dollars at a time to Mitt Romney, he would be more inclined to lower taxes on that top tax bracket, in order to continue receiving donations from them so he can win the election. Similarly, if pharmaceutical corporations such as Pfizer oppose the Affordable Care Act that Obama recently signed into law, they might donate millions to Mitt Romney's SuperPAC in order to make him more inclined to repeal the Affordable Care Act. This endless chain of anonymous figures controlling American Politics silently, but strongly, is the epitome of corruption.
   Mitt Romney has been under the public eye for political corruption, due to his past. When he ran for governor of Massachusetts he was more liberal than he is today. He supported a woman's right to an abortion, while also passing an individual mandate regarding healthcare, similar to the one that President Obama has recently passed, which he now fiercely opposes. It is apparent that he has “flip-floppedâ€� on many issues he used to be for or against. This has the public wondering about his honesty. Does he really believe in the values he is running on, or is he simply stating that he believes in these values just to get elected? A man like Mitt Romney, whose insatiable thirst for money cannot be quenched, can easily be portrayed as someone who will do anything at the sight of a dollar. Many people are wondering whether his motives are intrinsic or if his recent campaign donors have morphed his belief system into their own so they can push their own agendas.
   In addition, Mitt Romney has been under fire for supposedly not paying all of his owed taxes. He enjoys a capital gains tax, maxed at 15%, for his investments, which are his main source of income. He has exploited most of the loopholes in our tax code, proving that he is out to make himself richer, leaving many people wondering whether he is really interested in helping the lower and middle classes, or just the corporate elite like himself â€" transforming his timid smile into one of greed and corruption.
   On the other side of the fence we have the Democrats, currently led by the charismatic Barack Obama, whose commanding voice and charming smile comforts left-wing voters. He sends an inspiring message of helping out the middle and lower classes. In order to do this, he wants to increase taxes on the upper class with the Buffett rule, named after upper class figure Warren Buffett, which would automatically bump anyone making more than a million dollars per year up to a 30% tax rate. With this surplus, more funds can be allocated to the Affordable Care Act or social welfare programs such as food stamps. The right-wing appropriately calls this redistribution of wealth; in other words, taking from the rich and giving to the poor, making President Obama resemble a modern day Robin Hood. As many pundits point out, making more money than most does not make the forceful taking of their earned money acceptable. This information makes it apparent that corruption exists on both the left and the right.
   The problem we can see is that our two-party system forces candidates to conform to the party's ideas, instead of allowing a blend of conservative economics and liberal social issue stances, or vice versa. Third parties, such as the Libertarian Party, have been the party of many honest politicians, such as Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. Ron Paul ran as a Republican this election season after realizing that he would never get support while being a part of a third party. While debating, no other candidates were able to conjure information regarding scandals or past mistakes on him, because he is honest and does not get involved with political scandals. Because the Republicans saw him as a real threat, and they control the right-wing media, they stagnated his progress by giving him absolutely no media coverage outside of the debates. As a result, he got little support from anyone other than his enthusiastic followers. Similarly, Gary Johnson, the current Libertarian candidate for president, gets no media coverage. He boasts high job creation and leaving office with a balanced budget in New Mexico, while having no skeletons in his closet. The real corruption is in major parties suppressing candidates like these and stopping them from taking office since they will not be easily manipulated by corporations and agendas other than their own. They have shown a strong will to do what is right. They have achieved great accomplishments while in office. They have ideas that have not changed in the face of money or power. They have not faltered. And sadly, they have no chance of gaining national support.
   Most American people have reached a concurrence that politics are corrupt. In most recent elections, people have been heard claiming they are voting for the “lesser of two evils.â€� Others with a similar attitude have chosen not to vote at all. While not voting at all sends a message that neither candidate is suitable for office, other voters will still vote for a candidate, and in the absence of another person's vote, their vote counts for more. This changes nothing; not voting only increases the chance of either candidate winning the election.
   Obviously the left and the right have their own deal of corruption in politics. The deregulation of the banks eventually led to the housing market crash and the financial crisis on Wall Street. The SuperPACs take money from anonymous donors pushing their own personal interest. The redistribution of wealth has a vague resemblance to socialism. There is corruption, lying, and deceit that fill our political realm. The men and women who want to change what is fundamentally causing this damage are being suppressed by the parties causing the corruption, leaving many voters questioning their civic duty as Americans. It is the responsibility of every voter to educate themselves on their party's stance on every issue, and it is imperative that these voters vote for somebody they agree with and can genuinely believe in. If we are not willing to be the change we want to see in America, then we have clearly lost sight of our inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[PLEASEHELP1991]

Could someone proofread this for me and see if I missed anything? Not really looking for a debate, just quality of writing critique.


                                     If There Are Only Two Parties in America, I Do Not Want to Go to Either
   Republicans are for the rich. Democrats are for the poor. If we are not Democrats, we must be Republicans. If we are not Republicans, we must be Democrats. In our current political atmosphere, everything is polarized. If we are not on one side, we must be on the completely opposite side. Room does not exist for a moderate American voter. In recent elections, more voters are becoming independent, voting based on the issues instead of by party. These few voters have realized that our two-party system of politics is not working, because corruption is bred on both sides of the fence. The two-party system we have in place fuels and encourages corruption in even our most promising leaders, ignores and suppresses third parties, and unlike before, makes not voting seem like a viable option.
   The most prominent party of the last 30 years has been the Republican Party, with notable figures such as Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and his son, George W. Bush. They have spread a message of small federal government, lower taxes, and deregulation. They are not in favor of government intervention or social welfare programs. Ronald Reagan, who had members of Wall Street in his cabinet, deregulated the banks which made their profits soar. There is an obvious conflict of interest with this political move. As explained by Michael Moore in “Capitalism: A Love Story,” this is directly responsible for the eventual economic crisis that occurred with the banks in 2009 and the housing bubble popping in 2008. As a result, many Americans lost their jobs and houses because of a single, selfish act of corruption.
   Republicans are in favor of SuperPACs, or Political Action Committees. These committees act as a third party to fund raising for candidates. Instead of donating directly to candidates, private donors can donate unlimited amounts of money to, for example, Mitt Romney's SuperPAC, which will in turn donate the money to the Mitt Romney campaign. This way, donors can remain completely anonymous to voters and the news media. If billionaires were to donate millions of dollars at a time to Mitt Romney, he would be more inclined to lower taxes on that top tax bracket, in order to continue receiving donations from them so he can win the election. Similarly, if pharmaceutical corporations such as Pfizer oppose the Affordable Care Act that Obama recently signed into law, they might donate millions to Mitt Romney's SuperPAC in order to make him more inclined to repeal the Affordable Care Act. This endless chain of anonymous figures controlling American Politics silently, but strongly, is the epitome of corruption.
   Mitt Romney has been under the public eye for political corruption, due to his past. When he ran for governor of Massachusetts he was more liberal than he is today. He supported a woman's right to an abortion, while also passing an individual mandate regarding healthcare, similar to the one that President Obama has recently passed, which he now fiercely opposes. It is apparent that he has “flip-flopped” on many issues he used to be for or against. This has the public wondering about his honesty. Does he really believe in the values he is running on, or is he simply stating that he believes in these values just to get elected? A man like Mitt Romney, whose insatiable thirst for money cannot be quenched, can easily be portrayed as someone who will do anything at the sight of a dollar. Many people are wondering whether his motives are intrinsic or if his recent campaign donors have morphed his belief system into their own so they can push their own agendas.
   In addition, Mitt Romney has been under fire for supposedly not paying all of his owed taxes. He enjoys a capital gains tax, maxed at 15%, for his investments, which are his main source of income. He has exploited most of the loopholes in our tax code, proving that he is out to make himself richer, leaving many people wondering whether he is really interested in helping the lower and middle classes, or just the corporate elite like himself – transforming his timid smile into one of greed and corruption.
   On the other side of the fence we have the Democrats, currently led by the charismatic Barack Obama, whose commanding voice and charming smile comforts left-wing voters. He sends an inspiring message of helping out the middle and lower classes. In order to do this, he wants to increase taxes on the upper class with the Buffett rule, named after upper class figure Warren Buffett, which would automatically bump anyone making more than a million dollars per year up to a 30% tax rate. With this surplus, more funds can be allocated to the Affordable Care Act or social welfare programs such as food stamps. The right-wing appropriately calls this redistribution of wealth; in other words, taking from the rich and giving to the poor, making President Obama resemble a modern day Robin Hood. As many pundits point out, making more money than most does not make the forceful taking of their earned money acceptable. This information makes it apparent that corruption exists on both the left and the right.
   The problem we can see is that our two-party system forces candidates to conform to the party's ideas, instead of allowing a blend of conservative economics and liberal social issue stances, or vice versa. Third parties, such as the Libertarian Party, have been the party of many honest politicians, such as Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. Ron Paul ran as a Republican this election season after realizing that he would never get support while being a part of a third party. While debating, no other candidates were able to conjure information regarding scandals or past mistakes on him, because he is honest and does not get involved with political scandals. Because the Republicans saw him as a real threat, and they control the right-wing media, they stagnated his progress by giving him absolutely no media coverage outside of the debates. As a result, he got little support from anyone other than his enthusiastic followers. Similarly, Gary Johnson, the current Libertarian candidate for president, gets no media coverage. He boasts high job creation and leaving office with a balanced budget in New Mexico, while having no skeletons in his closet. The real corruption is in major parties suppressing candidates like these and stopping them from taking office since they will not be easily manipulated by corporations and agendas other than their own. They have shown a strong will to do what is right. They have achieved great accomplishments while in office. They have ideas that have not changed in the face of money or power. They have not faltered. And sadly, they have no chance of gaining national support.
   Most American people have reached a concurrence that politics are corrupt. In most recent elections, people have been heard claiming they are voting for the “lesser of two evils.” Others with a similar attitude have chosen not to vote at all. While not voting at all sends a message that neither candidate is suitable for office, other voters will still vote for a candidate, and in the absence of another person's vote, their vote counts for more. This changes nothing; not voting only increases the chance of either candidate winning the election.
   Obviously the left and the right have their own deal of corruption in politics. The deregulation of the banks eventually led to the housing market crash and the financial crisis on Wall Street. The SuperPACs take money from anonymous donors pushing their own personal interest. The redistribution of wealth has a vague resemblance to socialism. There is corruption, lying, and deceit that fill our political realm. The men and women who want to change what is fundamentally causing this damage are being suppressed by the parties causing the corruption, leaving many voters questioning their civic duty as Americans. It is the responsibility of every voter to educate themselves on their party's stance on every issue, and it is imperative that these voters vote for somebody they agree with and can genuinely believe in. If we are not willing to be the change we want to see in America, then we have clearly lost sight of our inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I am voting for Obama.

[hotlikesauce.]

hey good one.

[Boogus Epirus Aurelius]

We have a "two party system" but why is that? There are plenty of other options on the ballots, occasionally featuring some very capable individuals. Why don't debates feature candidates from other parties? Isn't that a form of censorship from the media?
You mention that briefely, but I think you could refocus most of the content around it.

You mention "corruption" from both sides of the penny, but it's a vague claim that isn't backed up very well. Provide a little more legitimate context. Obama's stance on lobbying, for example, is ripe.

Very one sided and it kills any potential for objectivity. Compare your description of Romney to that of Obama.
Tackle some ideas about attitudes of voters in general and the basis for decisions these days. Ex: Promote informed voting, not just poll swarming.

[snoorkel]

your use of oxford commas is inconsistent (should be consistent)

varied sentence structure would be more natural and more exciting to read, especially in the thesis/first paragraph

your argument that "corruption exists on both the left and the right" is very unclear, and seems to rest more on personal judgement than objectively stated facts (which is fine if this is supposed to be an emotional argument)

frequent use of first person pronouns like "we" is disconcerting

and by the end it's totally unclear what your point is. is it superpacs or socialism??

[hotlikesauce.]

We have a "two party system" but why is that? There are plenty of other options on the ballots, occasionally featuring some very capable individuals. Why don't debates feature candidates from other parties? Isn't that a form of censorship from the media?
You mention that briefely, but I think you could refocus most of the content around it.

You mention "corruption" from both sides of the penny, but it's a vague claim that isn't backed up very well. Provide a little more legitimate context. Obama's stance on lobbying, for example, is ripe.

Very one sided and it kills any potential for objectivity. Compare your description of Romney to that of Obama.
Tackle some ideas about attitudes of voters in general and the basis for decisions these days. Ex: Promote informed voting, not just poll swarming.

Thanks for the feedback. The prompt is that we're comparing and contrasting good or bad leadership, and I went with the premise that politics have become corrupt because of bad leadership. We were explicitly told that we weren't allowed to do any kind of research, which really hindered a lot of students (myself included). There's definitely not as much substance as there should be because I couldn't look up anything and I had to go strictly off memory; Mitt Romney has been under constant fire by the media so the bad on him was more fresh in my mind, which is why he got the majority of the paper.

your use of oxford commas is inconsistent (should be consistent)

varied sentence structure would be more natural and more exciting to read, especially in the thesis/first paragraph

your argument that "corruption exists on both the left and the right" is very unclear, and seems to rest more on personal judgement than objectively stated facts (which is fine if this is supposed to be an emotional argument)

frequent use of first person pronouns like "we" is disconcerting

and by the end it's totally unclear what your point is. is it superpacs or socialism??

My point was stated in my thesis: the left and the right are both corrupt. I thought I held that up pretty well with examples from both parties, albeit Republicans fell under the spotlight. I tried my best to be objective by not supporting one of the candidates I talked about.

SuperPACs and Socialism were just supposed to be examples of corruption, not anything I'm specifically targeting. Is it that unclear, or did you just need to know where I intended to go for you to see it? My teacher knows what my premise is and how I planned to support it, so he'll be in the mindset that I am.

Also, I was under the impression that changing tense wasn't necessarily a bad thing unless it was mid-sentence. Am I misinformed?

[hotlikesauce.]

Also, do you guys know much about APA? I'm writing a paper in APA right now and I'm struggling. I've been living on the Purdue OWL website but I'm still not getting some things.

[snoorkel]

i suppose it makes sense if your only point is that there is corruption in politics.

the main thing I would do to make this an objectively better piece of writing is remove the emotional weight of certain arguments, like these:

-  A man like Mitt Romney, whose insatiable thirst for money cannot be quenched
- transforming his timid smile into one of greed and corruption (I don't disagree lol, you just need to qualify statements like these and state them as if removed from your own perspective)
- [Obama] sends an inspiring message
- making President Obama resemble a modern day Robin Hood --> should be "which has led many pundits to label him as a sort of modern-day 'Robin Hood' figure"
- As many pundits point out, making more money than most does not make the forceful taking of their earned money acceptable. --> just remove this sentence
- I agree that your representation of Democratic corruption is pretty weak, and part of my problem with following your thesis through the paper is that redistribution of wealth doesn't seem to have anything to do with corruption, or at least you don't expose the "hidden agenda" that is making that happen and point to it as a source of corruption
- Third parties, such as the Libertarian Party, have been the party of many honest politicians --> and the rest of this paragraph

these can all be stated in ways that negate pretense, which never serves an author in critical writing. the point you're making needs to seem  more objectively drawn from facts that exist outside of you, rather than simply put forward as an idea that you happen to support.

also, an easy way to vary sentence structure is to take groups of short sentences and combine them into a compound sentence, for example:

They have spread a message of small federal government, lower taxes, and deregulation. They are not in favor of government intervention or social welfare programs. Ronald Reagan, who had members of Wall Street in his cabinet, deregulated the banks which made their profits soar.

becomes

They advocate smaller federal government supported by lower taxes, and are in favor of neither social welfare programs nor bank regulation; to this effect, Ronald Reagan, who had Wall Street businessmen among his cabinet, allowed bank profits to soar by supporting financial deregulation.

still not perfect but you get the idea.

and it's not really tenses that are an issue, it's repeatedly including the reader (and yourself) in "we," which is uncommon in this format of writing, and also conveys some greater sense of intimacy than I think you actually want in the discussion. or maybe you do

Also, do you guys know much about APA? I'm writing a paper in APA right now and I'm struggling. I've been living on the Purdue OWL website but I'm still not getting some things.

it shouldn't be too hard. post your q's and we will illuminate

[hotlikesauce.]

Thanks for the feedback. Seriously.

As for APA, I'm stuck on the "Literature Review." Do I just cite most of the information from my sources that I'm going to use for my discussion? From what I've read in sample papers, that seems to be all it is, but I'm not sure if I'm doing it correctly.

According to Laura Standford (2008), Social Exchange relies on trust instead of legal obligations. They do not necessarily involve explicit bargaining, just an underlying degree of trust that each member understands. Without explicit bargaining, it is hard to directly control the outcome of the relationship in terms of benefits minus costs. If the number is negative (i.e. the costs are higher than the benefits) then the relationship is most likely headed toward termination. With a higher cost than benefit, that member of the party is not acting in their self-interest, which is the driving force behind Social Exchange (Roloff 1981). This falls in line with the Comparison Level: the standard of what one feels like they should receive out of the relationship (Thibaut and Kelly). In addition to the Comparison Level, there is a Comparison Level for Alternatives, in which the person analyzes the situation in terms of what else they could be receiving (Thibaut and Kelly). For example, if someone was miserable in their current marriage, but the alternative was being alone and poor, the alternative presents a much worse scenario in terms of cost-benefit analysis, making the person stay in an unhappy marriage.

That's what I have so far, with a little more to go from at least two other sources I'm required to cite/use. Is this correct or am I just on the completely wrong path?

[Socks]

Actually, tax cuts are a MASSIVE source of intervention. What they mean is, they don't care about helping the little guy out.