Political Systems Essays - Political Philosophy, Politics, Elections

Political Systems Since the creation of mankind the world has been continually changing. With each day, man develops, countries grow and political systems change. A political system is an important set of social institutions. Political systems have many functions. Political systems create resources for education, health, welfare, industry and foreign policy. Political systems have changed drastically over centuries and are still changing everyday. To understand why and how political systems change, there are many factors. Some major factors are evolution, revolution and economy. A major factor and influence on why a political systems change is due to the countries social economy. The approach in which a country deals with certain political processes are affected by internal divisions of income, wealth and occupation, also by economic dependence or poverty. There is always a positive association between economic development and equality or income. The Linearity theory states that economic development leads to urbanization which leads to communication which leads to high levels of education and in turn leads to Democracy. This theory does an excellent job in showing how economics lead to a change in political systems. Wealthier nations such as the United States, Japan and other European countries often have more equitable income distributions than poorer countries. According to Robert J. Mundt, a political researcher, "in advanced industrial nations the wealthiest ten percent of households receive about one quarter of the national income, while poorest receive forty percent and about twenty percent get only fifteen percent of the national income; in middle income countries like Brazil, the wealthiest ten percent gets forty-six percent of national income and the poorest forth percent get only eight percent." An example of a country that social economy influenced the change in their political system would be the Russian Federation. The social economy lead to the fall of Communism. The Russian federation was a communist country believing in state owned and centrally planned government. Years ago the communists were able to keep up with the other big money powers of the world. But as time went on and they tried to catch up, their economy was too hard to control. Their products were poor quality and their quantity was created on a need basis. There was no efficiency. The people of Russia would have to wait years for cars, apartments and waited hours in lines for simple things like food and other basic necessities. The soviets began to argue with the government. In 1991, Russia had gone through the worst of it's inflation and industrial problems. Eventually Russia became the Russian Federation and there was an end to Communism. Urbanization is another reason that political systems change and develop. People run out of recourses on their rural lands and are forced to flee to the bigger cities. People go to the bigger cities hoping to find a better life for their families and themselves. As more people go these cities, it creates more jobs. Industry grows and the social economy also grows. Political systems begin to create governments that work on foreign policy and trade which creates more money. Eventually the political systems shape their governments to look like those of the other bigger wealthier countries in the world. Another factor that changed many countries political systems is that of a revolutionary change. Two countries that were strongly influenced by the revolutionary change were Russian and Germany. After World War I, Russians believed the revolution lead to the collapse or imperialism and capitalism. Russia was doing well before the war. Industry was still grown and the people seemed to be happy. That did not last long though, the war changed everything. When the Russian military went to war against Germany, the tsarist government fell. As the tsarist government fell apart so did the Russian economy. The government found themselves stuck in a situation that they did not know what to do. In 1917 democratic moderates over the power of the tsar. This group hoped to make the country more modern and democratic. But in a strange turn of events, the leader of the moderate democratics, betrayed his western allies and made a peace agreement with Germany. Eventually a Russian revolution created a party with the help of Germany lead to the fall of imperialism and capitalism. Soon after Russia became a communist country. Revolutionary change is apparent when looking at China's development as a government. China and Russia's political change are similar in many ways. One of the biggest revolutionary movements in China was Maoism. Maoism was created by a person named Mao Zedong. Mao believed in strengthening and

Obama Vetoes Bill Cutting Former Presidents Pension, Allowances

Obama Vetoes Bill Cutting Former Presidents' Pension, Allowances On July 22, 2016, President Obama vetoed the Presidential Allowance Modernization Act, which would have cut the pensions and allowances paid to former presidents. In his veto message to Congress, Obama said the bill â€Å"would impose onerous and unreasonable burdens on the offices of former presidents.† In an accompanying press release, the White House added that the President had vetoed the bill because it would have â€Å"immediately terminate salaries and all benefits to staffers carrying out the official duties of former presidents leaving no time or mechanism for them to transition to another payroll.† In addition, said the White House, the bill would have made it harder for the Secret Service to protect former presidents and would â€Å"immediately terminate leases, and remove furniture from offices of former presidents working to fulfilling their continued public service responsibilities.† The White House added that the President was willing to work with Congress in resolving his issues with the bill. â€Å"If Congress provides these technical fixes, the president would sign the bill,† said the White House. The White House noted that the President had vetoed the bill only after consulting with the four other surviving former presidents and that the veto was â€Å"responsive to concerns they raised to us.† Had it not been vetoed, the Presidential Allowance Modernization Act would have: Cut Pensions and Allowances for Former Presidents While not specifically aimed at Bill Clinton, who has made $104.9 million to â€Å"pay the bills† from speaking fees alone, the bill would have cut the pensions and allowances of former presidents. Under the current Former Presidents Act, former presidents receive an annual pension equal to the salaries of Cabinet Secretaries. Under the Presidential Allowance Modernization Act, the pensions of all former and future former presidents would have been capped at a maximum of $200,000 and the current link between presidential pensions and the annual salaries of Cabinet Secretary would have been removed. Replaced Other Benefits with a Single Allowance The bill would have also removed other benefits currently given to former presidents, including those for travel, staff, and office expenses. Instead, former presidents would have been given an additional $200,000 allowance to be used he or she determined. In other words, under Chaffetz’s bill, former presidents would have gotten an annual pension and allowance totaling no more than $400,000 - the same as the current presidential salary. However, under another provision of the bill, the pensions and allowances paid to former presidents could have been reduced further or even eliminated completely by Congress. Under Rep. Chaffetz’s bill, for every dollar former presidents earn in excess of that $400,000, their government-provided annual allowance would have been reduced by $1. In addition, former presidents who went on to hold any elected position in the federal government or the District of Columbia would have received no pension or allowance while holding that office. For example, under Chaffetz’s dollar-for-dollar penalty plan, former President Clinton, who made almost $10 million from speaking fees and book royalties in 2014, would have received no pension or allowances at all. But Presidential Widows Would Have Seen a Raise The bill would have increased the allowance paid to the surviving spouses of deceased former presidents from $20,000 to $100,000 a year. Currently, the only surviving spouse of a former president is Nancy Reagan, who received $7,000 in benefits in 2014, according to the Congressional Research Service. How Much Have Former Presidents Been Getting? According to an April 2014 Congressional Research Service report, the four surviving former presidents received a government pension and allowance benefits in 2014 totaling: Jimmy Carter - $470,000George H.W. Bush $837,000Bill Clinton $950,000George W. Bush $1,287,000 Rep. Chaffetz and other supporters of the Presidential Allowance Modernization Act argued that modern former presidents are highly unlikely to be strapped for cash, an opinion supported by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). â€Å"No current former President has claimed publicly to have significant financial concerns,† stated the CRS report. But, that has not always the case. Prior to the enactment of the Former Presidents Act in 1958, former presidents received no federal pension or other financial assistance at all, and some did suffer the â€Å"hard times.† â€Å"Some former Presidents- like Herbert Hoover and Andrew Jackson - returned to wealthy post-presidential lives,† stated the CRS. â€Å"Other former Presidents - including Ulysses S. Grant and Harry S. Truman - struggled financially.† Former President Truman, for example, said that just responding to his mail and requests for speeches cost him more than $30,000 a year. Current Status of the Bill The Presidential Allowance Modernization Act was passed by the House of Representatives on January 11, 2016, and by the Senate on June 21, 2016. The bill, as passed by the House and Senate, was vetoed by President Obama on July 22, 2016. On December 5, 2016, the bill, along with President Obama’s accompanying veto message, was referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. After deliberation, the committee decided against attempting to override the president’s veto.

Critical Analysis of Mysticism and the concept of oneness with god Essay

Critical Analysis of Mysticism and the concept of oneness with god - Essay Example According to W.T. Stace 'The mystical event is a personal experience during which one feels as though one has been touched by some higher or greater truth or power.' "The most important, the central characteristic in which all fully developed mystical experiences agree, and which in the last analysis is definitive of them and serves to mark them off from other kinds of experiences, is that they involve the apprehension of an ultimate nonsensuous unity in all things, a oneness or a One to which neither the senses nor the reason can penetrate. In other words, it entirely transcends our sensory-intellectual consciousness. It should be carefully noted that only fully developed mystical experiences are necessarily apprehensive of the One. Many experiences have been recorded which lack this central feature but yet possess other mystical characteristics. These are borderline cases, which may be said to shade off from the central core of cases. They have to the central core the relation which some philosophers like to call "family resemblance. (pp.14-15)" 1. Even among monotheistic religions-(belief in one God) - there are differences between God's relationship to his Creation. Religions like Islam feel he is above his creation and the Jewish tradition feels he is both, within and above it. 'On the face of it, the characteristics of transcendence and immanence appear to be in conflict. A transcendent God is one who is beyond perception, independent of the universe, and wholly "other" when compared to us. An immanent God, is one which exists - within us, within the universe - and, hence, very much a part of our existence. How can these qualities exist simultaneously'The best example of an immanent God is found in the Hindu religion in the Bagvad Gita in which the God Krishna declares, "He who sees me in all things and in all things sees me, where ever that man may be, I never leave him and he lives in me."2. In other words, an immanent God is found wherever one seeks Him. The idea of a transcendent unknowable God has roots in Zoroastrianism which in turn affected Judaism and Islam. The Old Testament prohibits idols in an attempt to emphasize the 'otherness' of God which cannot be physically depicted.The fundamental concept in Islam is the Oneness of God. Islamic 'tawhd'- monotheism, is not relative or pluralistic it is absolute. This Oneness of God is the first of Islam's five pillars. This is why it is known as the 'uncompromising monotheism of Islam' since it does not allow any pictorial references of 'Allah' in a mosque. Timeless, 'Allah' is unchangeable and outside time and space. He is therefore unknowable in the mystic sense. Islam believes that God is so far above his creation that man can never begin to know him. The word Muslim literally means 'one who has surrendered to God' through blind worship and obedience. In the Kabbalistic theory of creation God 'contracted' his infinite essence to create a 'conceptual space' in which a restricted world could exist. In Jewish mysticism, the concept of 'Tzimtzum' contains a built-in paradox, as it requires that God be transcendent and immanent at the same time. The Judaic God took part in