In the 1960s technology was just surfacing. Times seemed to be a tad easier during this time because of the technology that didn't exist. I think this is an unfair statement to compare the target of economic growth then and now due to the lack of motivation for the younger generation has for working. It seems that more of the younger people had more motivation to go out and have a job back then but now it seems to be easier to just file for unemployment or to be put on welfare then rather finding a job. Generation change is something that is big in this statement just because of the way that times have changed.

"Money doesn't grow on trees" That is the first thought that came into my head when this was read. It makes it seem like he is just going to produce more money to pour into this country. This plan is spending more money that we have circulating as of February in The United States. The source to that information below:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12773.htm

This is a false statement that is not credible. How does one know if the increase of employment promotes people to buy? Has there been a study to prove that? More detail information about where this fact came from would give the audience a sense of relief and making them understand where the fact came from.

I do not agree with raising the minimum wage, it is minimum wage because it is suppose to be a job for someone with no skills set starting out. Also raising taxes for the middle and working class is not right at all. A lot of the middle and working class is just doing that, they don't have a lot of money to begin with and is unfair that the people who are on food stamps and welfare get more money for groceries then the hard working class trying to make a living. This is a statement that should be reconsidered on ones part.

This is something that would have to be researched more to understand who Friedman is and his history being with Sanders in the first place. Why was he chosen to do this estimation? How did they first come about meeting?

Luhby, Tami. " Under Sanders, income and jobs would soar, economist says." CNN Money 8 Feb. 2016. Web. 7 Mar. 2016

Claim: Luhby is stating that the plan of Sanders is proposing he will help produce more jobs in the future than what has been in the past. Following this statement is facts from an economics professor from the University of Massachusetts, Gerald Friedman.

The target audience for this article is the general public who is following Sanders or following the presidential race for 2016.

This a big number to have for new spending. Even though Sanders is willing to take out of some of the old spending, How can Clinton just bring more money to spend that we don't have?

Target audience is someone that is following up on the Democratic debate in October. This is also a good article for a lay out of numbers for a better understanding of one's plan.

This statement right here is where I can see that the author, Hannity is biased against the democratic party.

Right after this is where I would like to see something about Clinton's spending plan broken down.

Great visual of how he plans to pay for the things he is promising. This is for a span of 10 years. My question here is how will he plan to keep the plan when he can be in the office for only eight years.

Hannity states on his radio show that nothing is free. There is a video called there is no such thing as a free lunch. The link is below: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77fdRWpV_-4

Hannity, Sean. "So What Does All the Free Stuff Democrats are Promising Actually Cost?" The Sean Hannity Show 15 Oct. 2015. Web. 7 Mar. 2016.

The claim is in the title: Hannity is taking in all the free stuff that one political party is promising and figuring out what it will cost in the long run. This is something that should be viewed to the public because it shows the public of a total figure to what this "free" stuff does cost.

This raises a question for me, going into the military a benefit from serving the country is free college. If free college is offered to everyone, will another benefit be replaced since that will be taken away just for the military? How will the government go about that, giving the ones who serve another benefit?

With such references, I feel all the research behind this is a credible source.

Following this issue would be a great idea for everyone, I would have to agree. The reason behind following this is because even if you or your child isn't going to a college or university, it will still affect everyone in the long run since it will come out of everyone who is a legal citizen in the United States.

I thought this was a great fact to put in here. Since it is reference it is a credible source. For the author to put in a survey that was taken was a good idea for the idea of how American students feel about the price they are paying for the value of the college. Being in college this is something that is understandable to many. Making it connect with the audience.

The claim for this article is stating that there are recent efforts and proposal coming about in the government to give out free community college.

The target audience that this is for is mostly stated right here in the article. The audience that would get the most out of this is ones who are looking for at the cost to attend college. This could either be parents, the students themselves or another family member.

Gross, Jacob P. "Introduction: Reauthorization: An Opportunity for Substantive Change in How Students Pay for College." Journal of Student Financial Aid 2 Nov. 2015. Web. 7 Mar. 2016.

This is a good ending statement to leave the audience pondering on what we are paying for in our taxes. It leaves the audience to go look up more details about what this plan. I think the author of this article is very pro for Sander's getting into the office and making changes to this situation. This article does have good facts and figures to bring to the surface for visual aid but obvious that he is a supporter of Sander's plan.

How will this happen if Sander's is elected? If we are taking taxes out for something and that money is being used, will you cut the costs for that to fund this "free stuff"? Waldman would be need to go in my specific detail about things that we are paying for and what we could take out. This leaves for a lot of questions for the audience, such as myself are we just paying to pay?

This is something that needs to be evaluated since the countries government as a whole doesn't technically have to pay for this. The state that this road, bridges, and water systems that are in take out taxes to fix this for their own cities. Would this mean you are going to get doubled taxed to fix a bridge that is 7 states away and not a bridge that is in the city you are living in?

One thing that I would like to know is where Waldman is getting these figures at?

The article's target audience is going to be a general audience who is following politics. This article goes into details that you would need a little research on. Noting on the figures is something that one would need to be following. The majority of the people that would be reading this would be someone who agrees that Sander's plans are going to cost us way too much as tax payers.

Waldman is an opinion blogger for The Washington Post. Even though he is an opinion blogger, this article has a sense of figures to visually see how it can work without bankrupting America.

Waldman, Paul. "No, Bernie Sander is not going to bankrupt America to the tune of $18 trillion." Washington Post. 15 Sept. 2015. Web. 6 Mar. 2016.

Waldman's claim: He is showing how Sander's plan for free college and health care will not make our country go bankrupt by showing us figures compared to other plans.

I think this is a good fact to show how much college tuition has gone up and how many more people are going to get higher education. It gives you a visual difference on how much higher the cost keeps going up.

With free college, will just anyone be able to apply and get accepted? How will they monitor the students who are willing to actually graduate or the ones just to apply and get in just because it is free? Will the state colleges such as Purdue and Colorado State be entitled to change their requirements to get accepted? How about the community colleges that usually accept almost anyone, will they limit who takes classes?

This is in a way targeting an audience. Families who have kids looking into college and the people that live in a state. This could be a general audience since majority of the people will be taxed to be able to provide free college tuition in their home state.

Luhby's authority is talking about the money situation in Sander's way to bring in free college. She is stating how and where the money is coming from. How much money that will be spent to place this bill on a yearly bases.

Tami Luhby is the senior writer for CNN Money, she writes about the economy, health care and the presidential election 2016.

Luhby, Tami. "Can Bernie Sanders deliver free college for all? Not so easily." CNN. 3 Feb. 2016. Web. 6 Mar. 2016.

Luhby's claim is stated right in the article: She states how difficult it will be for Sander's free college actually will be for the United States and for the individual states. It is showing where the money will come from and how much will have to come out of each state for their students.