Dick Morris had an interesting article on RealClearPolitics this week. I thought it was a little bit negative, but before i get to that, let me explain what the article said. Basically, RCP is talking about how Washington now controls everything with some financial institutions. He explains how Obama just gave money to Chrysler to prevent workers from losing money and, in the process, jobs. Of course, though, Washington has guidelines. Much like JFK told the steel industry to lower prices in 1962, Obama is making sure that Chrysler, CitiGroup, and other companies, follow strict goals to ensure employee and company economic safety. Towards the end of the article, Morris said like this policy, and "King Obama," can and will bring the country down.
This is a tad bit ridiculous. The stock market is looking good right now. Many are saying we could be coming out of the recession, and yet we still have to hear about this. To be honest, it's a little ridiculous. Seems like a bit of chicken little predicting that this process will lead to the sky falling. But, it seems to never get old though, to fear and fear and fear, and that's what this article is doing.
Country Looking Happier
On a completely different note, Dana Milbank reports that the nation is growing happier with the leadership of the country and the direction it is headed. The economy is showing signs of recovering, the swine flu is becoming less and less of an issue, droughts are ending, and the stock market is rising. It was an interesting article, and part of that article stated that in October 8 percent of people were happy with the direction the nation was going in. Now, that number is around 50 percent.
As an Obama supporter, this article made me feel a lot better than I did after reading the first article. I mean, I am a little bit biased, but I can see the positives this country is making. The first clear sign of that is the fact that the stock market is really, really, really improving. Whereas, it was under 7,000 in January, it now sits above 8,400 in the Dow Jones Industrials, a growth that probably will not take it back to its highest point at around 13,000, but will allow us to recover right now when we clearly need it. Couple that with the fact that the housing market is getting better. I just see times right now as being good, something that is a biparty of the new leadership in government, especially in the federal government.
Obama's Chrysler Plan Could Work
Daniel Gross had an interesting post this week on Newsweek online. Basically, he told people to stop complaining on how Obama is handling the Chrysler bankruptcy. Basically, some small investment firms had a lot of their funds "lacerated" by Obama, who called them greedy, and that they were trying to make a profit and that's it. Federal bailout funds had been given to the larger investment firms, and this is something that Obama is receiving flack for. Here's one of the reasons that Gross says why this plan actually works:
"First, the bank lenders always could have opted out. Chrysler employees couldn't. Over several decades, Chrysler's employees lent a big chunk of their labor in exchange for contracted health care benefits and payments. But there's no secondary market for these types of claims on a company's assets. The employees couldn't cut their losses and sell their pension rights to a third party. Nor could they hedge by trading options or buying credit default swaps. By contrast, holders of bank debt and bonds weren't long-term lenders. They may have jumped in last year, or last month, looking for a quick trade. And when it didn't work out, they had an easy out: sell the debt to another investor."
I thought this article was very interesting. I can't really understand it all, because I don't know the complete situation with Chrysler, but I can safely say that any investor in Chrysler is an investor I would not want to be. I don't really think we should protect anybody in a bankruptcy situation with tax dollars, even if it is the United Auto Workers, and protecting unsecured lenders over secured lenders can be dangerous in the longterm, but I think companies that have received federal aid like Chrysler might be an exception to the rule.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Week 8 Blog
I know this blog is a bit late, but what can I say? I'm your average lazy American.
First, I found this article saying how economists jobs today are tougher. No longer are the days of guessing what the effects of certain things will have on the economy, but here is the time when we have to guess how politicians will react. How will the President react to this company asking for bailout money? Will he ignore the request or provide the company with money? Will the money, assuming he provides it, have strings attached? Very interesting article.
Very interesting and true that is. All we hear about on the news nowadays is how so-and-so company is seeking a bailout. It makes it tough to be the President or other politicians in power because the man in charge has to pick who is worthy and necessary enough and carries enough trust with them to receive bailout money, something that must be very hard for anybody, even men in charge, to do.
Very funny piece on nyt.com talks about how Jim Cramer has proclaimed the recession to be over. (Take what Cramer says with caution, just warning all readers!) The op-ed tells us to assume this is true just for the point of the article. And that point is to determine what Americans have learned from this recession. And that is simple. Taking a gamble on something you cannot afford right now, rather than making investments in proven longterm investments, as was seen in the housing market, will prove devastatingly bad results. It is important ot change the focus of the people, and for us to learn so that a recession doesn't happen in our near future.
Once again, a very interesting piece. I would have to agree with it in the sense of once again, the housing market was something we heard about on the news that just didn't seem to go away, but yet contained a problem no matter how many times we were warned about it. We need to adjust moving forward to survive as a country.
Susan Lee over at Forbes presented an article that talks about how we as a country should still be angry at the government for providing bailouts for a variety of reasons. It degrades our nation's character when we can reward countries that do something wrong, for instance. Two, it degrades our political culture. We trust politicians to do what's right and seldom is giving bailouts to those who fail something right in the minds of most peoples' eyes.
Very interesting artcile. I hate when government provides bailouts. It just doesn't seem to point to the sense of achieving on your own, and providing our own money to try to help save tanking businesses doesn't seem to have a positive effect.
Have a happy Easter everybody!
First, I found this article saying how economists jobs today are tougher. No longer are the days of guessing what the effects of certain things will have on the economy, but here is the time when we have to guess how politicians will react. How will the President react to this company asking for bailout money? Will he ignore the request or provide the company with money? Will the money, assuming he provides it, have strings attached? Very interesting article.
Very interesting and true that is. All we hear about on the news nowadays is how so-and-so company is seeking a bailout. It makes it tough to be the President or other politicians in power because the man in charge has to pick who is worthy and necessary enough and carries enough trust with them to receive bailout money, something that must be very hard for anybody, even men in charge, to do.
Very funny piece on nyt.com talks about how Jim Cramer has proclaimed the recession to be over. (Take what Cramer says with caution, just warning all readers!) The op-ed tells us to assume this is true just for the point of the article. And that point is to determine what Americans have learned from this recession. And that is simple. Taking a gamble on something you cannot afford right now, rather than making investments in proven longterm investments, as was seen in the housing market, will prove devastatingly bad results. It is important ot change the focus of the people, and for us to learn so that a recession doesn't happen in our near future.
Once again, a very interesting piece. I would have to agree with it in the sense of once again, the housing market was something we heard about on the news that just didn't seem to go away, but yet contained a problem no matter how many times we were warned about it. We need to adjust moving forward to survive as a country.
Susan Lee over at Forbes presented an article that talks about how we as a country should still be angry at the government for providing bailouts for a variety of reasons. It degrades our nation's character when we can reward countries that do something wrong, for instance. Two, it degrades our political culture. We trust politicians to do what's right and seldom is giving bailouts to those who fail something right in the minds of most peoples' eyes.
Very interesting artcile. I hate when government provides bailouts. It just doesn't seem to point to the sense of achieving on your own, and providing our own money to try to help save tanking businesses doesn't seem to have a positive effect.
Have a happy Easter everybody!
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Week 7 Blog
So, a lot of stuff happened this week, so I will get straight to the point with my views of three articles this week.
Mike Allen and Jim Vandehei refer to Barack Obama as the nation's CEO. They say that what he has done during his brief presidency thus far is take the bull by the horns in terms of the nation's economy. He pretty much forced the CEO of General Motors, Rick Wagoner, to resign from his post, and he has been doing everything in his power to fix the economy. Not long ago, he criticized AIG for paying out bonuses to those that helped the country fail economically. This past week, he helped partner with investors to buy $1 trillion in bad assets. So, as the authors of the article point out, it is clear that he is taking over our nation's economy and making that his number one plan of action.
Personally, I don't know what I think of this. I mean, our nation's economy is in shambles, but is Obama stretching his power when he forces the CEO of GM to quit. How can he do it? I mean, I agree that Wagoner isn't a very good CEO, but still, I think maybe he went a little too far there. But, if his plans are successful, then why complain? It's ok, in this case, to break the rules as long as it benefits the country. I mean, what's the harm in it? On the other side, if, four years down the road, the nation's economy is not better, or, God forbid, worse, how will we look back on actions like this? It'll be interesting to see.
Howard Fineman had a very humorous piece about how Obama is becoming "Super Prez" sort of like a Mr. Fix-It to the United States. Something "in the lab" went horribly wrong, and as soon as he got inaugurated, the President decided to take action on his own. Is there an evil CEO like Rick Wagoner? Well, President Obama can use his superpowers to fire him. If an industry is in trouble, he will send his own "czars" to protect it. Very humorous article.
I really enjoyed this article. The author does have his point. I mean, Obama has become a celebrity whom everybody expects to fix everything. He's appeared on "The Tonight Show," "60 Minutes," and even ESPN, anywhere possible to get a spare word in. He has taken action as well, he's pushed spending plans through Congress with relative ease. It's an interesting analogy, but I can see the superhero thing. Very, very compelling.
I saw an article on CNN.com that detailed Obama's new plan to restore global economy and end the world's recession. The article mentions that British prime minister Gordon Brown is aligned with Obama on this plan, and the two were part of a group of 20 world leaders at a summit recently. Obama wants the leaders to act with urgency. Brown helped Obama come up with five goals for this proposal, one is obvious, and that is to restore the global banking system.
I like this policy. It shouldn't be surprising, I mean I am far from a moderate. But the recession is a scary thing, and the US isn't alone in dealing with this. Why not put the world's leaders in one place, try to think up a solution to this mess, and let's hopefully get ourselves out of this. Some, like French president Sarkozy, don't like the ideas presented at the summit, but still, I think we must come up with a solution to the problem. Therefore, this is a great thing, in my honest opinion.
Mike Allen and Jim Vandehei refer to Barack Obama as the nation's CEO. They say that what he has done during his brief presidency thus far is take the bull by the horns in terms of the nation's economy. He pretty much forced the CEO of General Motors, Rick Wagoner, to resign from his post, and he has been doing everything in his power to fix the economy. Not long ago, he criticized AIG for paying out bonuses to those that helped the country fail economically. This past week, he helped partner with investors to buy $1 trillion in bad assets. So, as the authors of the article point out, it is clear that he is taking over our nation's economy and making that his number one plan of action.
Personally, I don't know what I think of this. I mean, our nation's economy is in shambles, but is Obama stretching his power when he forces the CEO of GM to quit. How can he do it? I mean, I agree that Wagoner isn't a very good CEO, but still, I think maybe he went a little too far there. But, if his plans are successful, then why complain? It's ok, in this case, to break the rules as long as it benefits the country. I mean, what's the harm in it? On the other side, if, four years down the road, the nation's economy is not better, or, God forbid, worse, how will we look back on actions like this? It'll be interesting to see.
Howard Fineman had a very humorous piece about how Obama is becoming "Super Prez" sort of like a Mr. Fix-It to the United States. Something "in the lab" went horribly wrong, and as soon as he got inaugurated, the President decided to take action on his own. Is there an evil CEO like Rick Wagoner? Well, President Obama can use his superpowers to fire him. If an industry is in trouble, he will send his own "czars" to protect it. Very humorous article.
I really enjoyed this article. The author does have his point. I mean, Obama has become a celebrity whom everybody expects to fix everything. He's appeared on "The Tonight Show," "60 Minutes," and even ESPN, anywhere possible to get a spare word in. He has taken action as well, he's pushed spending plans through Congress with relative ease. It's an interesting analogy, but I can see the superhero thing. Very, very compelling.
I saw an article on CNN.com that detailed Obama's new plan to restore global economy and end the world's recession. The article mentions that British prime minister Gordon Brown is aligned with Obama on this plan, and the two were part of a group of 20 world leaders at a summit recently. Obama wants the leaders to act with urgency. Brown helped Obama come up with five goals for this proposal, one is obvious, and that is to restore the global banking system.
I like this policy. It shouldn't be surprising, I mean I am far from a moderate. But the recession is a scary thing, and the US isn't alone in dealing with this. Why not put the world's leaders in one place, try to think up a solution to this mess, and let's hopefully get ourselves out of this. Some, like French president Sarkozy, don't like the ideas presented at the summit, but still, I think we must come up with a solution to the problem. Therefore, this is a great thing, in my honest opinion.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Week 6 Blog
I was reading an article on the online version of the U.K.'s "Telegraph" in which Simon Heffer says that perhaps Barack Obama can't fix America. Heffer said that the pork spending that America is spending with the stimulus bill, which is somehow still being talked about, may put our nation in eternal doom. He mentioned the fact that there is a book by Ayn Rand about how America is destroyed by high taxes and a reliance on welfarism, and Heffer sees the significant resemblance when he looks at America today.
Here's my take on this article. It's good, I'll give it that. But I don't really agree with anything he said. How can we see that this president will do a bad job? Who is to assume that even if he is issuing pork with his package, that it won't help the country escape the reality that is the recession in America. Ever since the package has been signed into law, for example, the stock market has been going up. Isn't that a sign that we may be rebounding, and that, who knows?, the recession may be coming to an end? How much of the credit goes to Obama? It will be very interesting to see how things go the next fifty days of his presidency, after the first fifty days haven't really given us enough yet to judge how good or bad of a job he is truly doing.
While perusing the net, I happened to see Steve Forbes's op-ed on forbes.com that was inquiring Obama as to why he has not taken the Abe Lincoln approach of firing incapable leaders. He focuses the article on why Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke still have jobs, when they obviously can't perform.
In the case of Tim Geithner, the new treasury secretary, Forbes argues, has done nothing to do away with the principle of mark-to-market. This principle has been losing money on the book and, while they have more money, the banks have less regulatory capital to use, due to auditors fearing a lawsuit if they do not take action. In the instance of Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Forbes notes that Bernanke has made every mistake possible in creating and dealing with this economic process. He has shrunk the balance sheet of the Fed to $400 billion, which Forbes compares to firemen rolling up hoses in the midst of a large fire.
Overall, very good point made by Forbes. These men clearly have made mistakes, and I would appreciate it if Obama could realize that these men are not doing the job that they signed up for. We need competent leaders if our country is to succeed, and, right now, they aren't showing too much competence.
Finally, I saw something in the Washington Post by Harold Meyerson that, like the article above, criticized Geithner. He said that it is unbelievable that Geithner has not fired the CEO of AIG, Ed Liddy, after it was revealed that Liddy had given our money to its workers as bonuses. Instead, in the eight weeks since Obama got inaugurated, Geithner has decided to be nice to banks and insurance companies. Meyerson thinks the solution to this is simple. Naturalize these companies. 56 percent of Americans, including Alan Greenspan, support this idea already. That way, the government can appoint trustworthy leaders and prevent situations like the one at AIG.
I definitely agree with this article because it is quite clear that we need more government intervention in these companies, and nationalizing them would help us tremdously.
Here's my take on this article. It's good, I'll give it that. But I don't really agree with anything he said. How can we see that this president will do a bad job? Who is to assume that even if he is issuing pork with his package, that it won't help the country escape the reality that is the recession in America. Ever since the package has been signed into law, for example, the stock market has been going up. Isn't that a sign that we may be rebounding, and that, who knows?, the recession may be coming to an end? How much of the credit goes to Obama? It will be very interesting to see how things go the next fifty days of his presidency, after the first fifty days haven't really given us enough yet to judge how good or bad of a job he is truly doing.
While perusing the net, I happened to see Steve Forbes's op-ed on forbes.com that was inquiring Obama as to why he has not taken the Abe Lincoln approach of firing incapable leaders. He focuses the article on why Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke still have jobs, when they obviously can't perform.
In the case of Tim Geithner, the new treasury secretary, Forbes argues, has done nothing to do away with the principle of mark-to-market. This principle has been losing money on the book and, while they have more money, the banks have less regulatory capital to use, due to auditors fearing a lawsuit if they do not take action. In the instance of Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Forbes notes that Bernanke has made every mistake possible in creating and dealing with this economic process. He has shrunk the balance sheet of the Fed to $400 billion, which Forbes compares to firemen rolling up hoses in the midst of a large fire.
Overall, very good point made by Forbes. These men clearly have made mistakes, and I would appreciate it if Obama could realize that these men are not doing the job that they signed up for. We need competent leaders if our country is to succeed, and, right now, they aren't showing too much competence.
Finally, I saw something in the Washington Post by Harold Meyerson that, like the article above, criticized Geithner. He said that it is unbelievable that Geithner has not fired the CEO of AIG, Ed Liddy, after it was revealed that Liddy had given our money to its workers as bonuses. Instead, in the eight weeks since Obama got inaugurated, Geithner has decided to be nice to banks and insurance companies. Meyerson thinks the solution to this is simple. Naturalize these companies. 56 percent of Americans, including Alan Greenspan, support this idea already. That way, the government can appoint trustworthy leaders and prevent situations like the one at AIG.
I definitely agree with this article because it is quite clear that we need more government intervention in these companies, and nationalizing them would help us tremdously.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Week 5 Blog
Economy: Obama's Fault?
I read an article on realclearpolitics.com, that a very interesting argument about who to blame for this economic mess we are in right now. In the end, he points his finger at President Obama, but his reasoning is interesting. The author, David Harsanyi, notes that it would be too early to blame the President, except for the fact that "Obama had not worked early to support agenda-driven omnibus pork bills, job-killing cap and trade schemes, and union assaults on workers' rights, to name just a few of his priorities." Harsanyi notes that the people Obama appoints to fix the economy, such as Treasury secretary Timothy Geithner, whos explanation of the bank bailout plan plunged the market down further recently. Harsanyi states that because Obama has drained his political capital towards "furthering ideology rather than economic growth," that this is his mess.
I think it is certainly a valid argument by Harsanyi, but I do not buy into it just yet. I don't think we really know yet about the quality of the bank bailout and the stimulus plan yet because we have not had enough time to observe its effects. Plus, the economy may have already reached a bottom this past week, when the market rose significantly on Tuesday. So for now, I am content on blaming Bush.
And the reason that I think I have the right to blame Bush is simple. Hey, we spent eight years with him, he had time to let his ideas try to shine through, and that didn't happen. Maybe Obama is smarter than all the critics, and maybe his plan isn't just a bunch of pork. Heck, the critics could be right, but it is too early to tell.
Speaking about the increasing market, I saw an interesting article on nyt.com this week detailing the boom in the stock market. The author, Thomas Friedman, likened this gain to the first day after a tragedy, making it the 9/12 of the stock market. At this time we need unity to keep this nation on track. However, Friedman notes that at this time the Republicans would rather see the Democrats fail, so that the Republicans can win elections, rather than see the nation succeed. It was documented before in clear words when Rush Limbaugh said that he wants Obama to fail.
Friedman also acknowleges that we need to keep helping the companies such as AIG, Citi, and GM get eaten up by the market, then the country will fail along with it. So, the article gives us a lot to think about. Overall, the gist of it is that no matter what happens, the Republicans will find a way to blame the Democrats, and some will even want the country to fail just for the Republicans potential gain.
Why is this? I don't remember the Democrats rejoicing over every Bush error over the past eight years. It is interesting to me how this whole hope-the-other team fails thing is a trait owned by just the Republicans. The Democrats seem to have a grown up opinion about everything.
Finally, a third article I found was on CBSNews.com. Declan McCullagh said that we can no longer achieve the days where the Dow Jones was 14,000, no matter how much stimulating the government does. He called into question the man in charge that put a stimulus bill into action trying to rescue AIG, Fannie and Freddie, GM, and all these companies that are struggling. He stated that we simply cannot fix all the problems and save all the companies and until we realize this the economy is in trouble.
I think he has a good point, but only to a degree. These are big companies, and if they shut down, like the Times article mentioned, it could be failure to the country. This isn't bailout money going to the small-chain restaurant down the street that employs 30 workers. This is much bigger than that. Millions of jobs are at stake with these jobs that are in trouble. Millions of people have mortgage problems. You can't just ignore the problem. What you can do is lessen it to a degree by not spending as much, but that's only my opinion.
Is that possible? I have no idea. But maybe you could spend less money in the stimulus bill and try that out. It's too late now, but heck, if it ends up working, I'm all for the stimulus bill fixing the economy. The likelihood though is that this one thing will not salvage the economy alone.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Week 4 Blog
An economy in turmoil?
With the stock market suffering extreme losses this week, signified by the Dow's closing number below 7,000 Monday, the first such event in twelve years, the question has to be asked: Is the country losing trust with Obama's economic policies.
An article on the Wall Street Journal website this week proved to be very critical of the Obama administration early on, and remain weary that the policies that he is invoking could in turn increase the length of the recession Americans are living in. The article notes that ever since Obama released his budget plan, the market has been falling even further, and that is largely because the document "is a declaration of hostility towards capitalists across the economy." Finally, the article argues that for now, and maybe the next two or three years, the Obama campaign can blame Republicans for the downfall and live off of their mistakes by simply placing blame on them. The article, earlier on, mentioned figures to go along with its argument that the economy is getting worse with the Obama bills and argues that they may increase the length of the recession.
I find this article very interesting. The article presents many valid arguments, many of which I do not fully understand the language of, but can tell from the context that they are valid points. I must admit that I am not as big of a fan of Obama now as I was when he first got elected. I still support him, and think that he can and hopefully will do a great job, but there really are no immediate positive results since he has been elected, only dark, negative ones. One of those is the stock market, that keeps freefalling at a seemingly unending pace. Another is the tax increases on the wealthy? Will this truly help spread the wealth, or will it in turn take down the economy as we know it? Time to get some other viewpoints.
Anderson Cooper made an argument on CNN.com this week that perhaps the President is trying to do to many things at once to be as effective as necessary to combat this worldwide economic crisis. He notes that with all the things he is trying to do this early on in his presidency, including an overhaul of the healthcare industry and a complete change to our energy policy, it is tough to "laser in" on the economy, which continues to sink further and further as the days go on. Basically, Cooper's main point is that Obama should not ignore the other issues, but should focus on the more "vital surgery" first and then worry about the minor operations.
Once again, a CNN writer speaks to me. I think this is a great point. Now that I think about all that Obama has tried to/already accomplished, it comes as no surprise to me that the economy is lagging behind. Since he has become President, Obama has set forth a plan to close Guantanamo Bay within the year, has proposed to slowly withdraw troops from Iraq and focus more on Afghanistan, as well as his attempts to overhaul the healthcare and energy industries mentioned above. Obama has focused on climate change, which is a radical change to the Bush days, when the former President denied in many instances the significance of global warming on our planet. So, that leaves a question. What has Obama done for the economy? Well, that massive stimulus bill he passed comes to mind immediately. But that hasn't really shown immediate results yet, and we may not know if there will be results for years to come. What we have noticed is the stocks are continuing to plummet, and if we cannot establish rules on how to handle the banking industry effectively, for instance, then maybe we will get a lot worse before we get better. Experts have already said that the chances of us becoming involved in a minor depression have now already increased to one in four, so if Obama is not able to narrow down the focus, perhaps we could be headed down that road.
William Murchison wrote an article for Real Clear Politics that, quite frankly, confuses me. It appears through a good portion of the article that he may be supporting Obama, but at the end he takes a shot at him, in my opinion. He starts off the article by giving the New York Times viewpoint that Conservatives are messed up in their viewpoints, which consist of rallying AGAINST Obama. What he then tells us to do, Murchison I mean, is to listen to those people that the Times do not like. He then goes on to talk about the good and the bad news, in reverse order, of the budget that Obama recently announced to us, which includes a 1.75 trillion dollar deficit.
Murchison starts off with the bad news. He says that Obama wants our nation to be run by, but not owned by, the national government. He then provides that argument that:
Then Murchison goes into the good. He argues that because Obama wants to finance what is basically a national healthcare plan and end the war in Iraq by taxing the rich, and this process, even if taking every penny from the rich, is unfeasible, that he is overreaching, and the dire economic consequences that could happen if some of Obama's plans came true shouldn't be feared because they simply won't happen.
Okay, now I see where I went wrong in interpreting the article. Murchison NEVER praises Obama, and I don't know how I missed that. He is simply betting that Obama's plans will never come to fruition because the President is overreaching. I think he is wrong. I think Obama's plans, especially with the Iraq war and national healthcare, can get done, and that has nothing to do with him overtaxing the rich. I guess we will have to see how things work out, but I just interpreted this article to be a very pessimistic view of the man in the White House.
An article on the Wall Street Journal website this week proved to be very critical of the Obama administration early on, and remain weary that the policies that he is invoking could in turn increase the length of the recession Americans are living in. The article notes that ever since Obama released his budget plan, the market has been falling even further, and that is largely because the document "is a declaration of hostility towards capitalists across the economy." Finally, the article argues that for now, and maybe the next two or three years, the Obama campaign can blame Republicans for the downfall and live off of their mistakes by simply placing blame on them. The article, earlier on, mentioned figures to go along with its argument that the economy is getting worse with the Obama bills and argues that they may increase the length of the recession.
I find this article very interesting. The article presents many valid arguments, many of which I do not fully understand the language of, but can tell from the context that they are valid points. I must admit that I am not as big of a fan of Obama now as I was when he first got elected. I still support him, and think that he can and hopefully will do a great job, but there really are no immediate positive results since he has been elected, only dark, negative ones. One of those is the stock market, that keeps freefalling at a seemingly unending pace. Another is the tax increases on the wealthy? Will this truly help spread the wealth, or will it in turn take down the economy as we know it? Time to get some other viewpoints.
Anderson Cooper made an argument on CNN.com this week that perhaps the President is trying to do to many things at once to be as effective as necessary to combat this worldwide economic crisis. He notes that with all the things he is trying to do this early on in his presidency, including an overhaul of the healthcare industry and a complete change to our energy policy, it is tough to "laser in" on the economy, which continues to sink further and further as the days go on. Basically, Cooper's main point is that Obama should not ignore the other issues, but should focus on the more "vital surgery" first and then worry about the minor operations.
Once again, a CNN writer speaks to me. I think this is a great point. Now that I think about all that Obama has tried to/already accomplished, it comes as no surprise to me that the economy is lagging behind. Since he has become President, Obama has set forth a plan to close Guantanamo Bay within the year, has proposed to slowly withdraw troops from Iraq and focus more on Afghanistan, as well as his attempts to overhaul the healthcare and energy industries mentioned above. Obama has focused on climate change, which is a radical change to the Bush days, when the former President denied in many instances the significance of global warming on our planet. So, that leaves a question. What has Obama done for the economy? Well, that massive stimulus bill he passed comes to mind immediately. But that hasn't really shown immediate results yet, and we may not know if there will be results for years to come. What we have noticed is the stocks are continuing to plummet, and if we cannot establish rules on how to handle the banking industry effectively, for instance, then maybe we will get a lot worse before we get better. Experts have already said that the chances of us becoming involved in a minor depression have now already increased to one in four, so if Obama is not able to narrow down the focus, perhaps we could be headed down that road.
William Murchison wrote an article for Real Clear Politics that, quite frankly, confuses me. It appears through a good portion of the article that he may be supporting Obama, but at the end he takes a shot at him, in my opinion. He starts off the article by giving the New York Times viewpoint that Conservatives are messed up in their viewpoints, which consist of rallying AGAINST Obama. What he then tells us to do, Murchison I mean, is to listen to those people that the Times do not like. He then goes on to talk about the good and the bad news, in reverse order, of the budget that Obama recently announced to us, which includes a 1.75 trillion dollar deficit.
Murchison starts off with the bad news. He says that Obama wants our nation to be run by, but not owned by, the national government. He then provides that argument that:
"We approach, under Obama-ism, centralization of a sort unattempted here since, under infinitely grimmer economic circumstances, the first New Deal. Mr. Jefferson foresaw something of the sort."He also incorporates a quote from Tocqueville that basically says when this happens it leaves the people as timid animals unable to control what goes on with their finances, instead being forced to obey their owners, the federal government.
Then Murchison goes into the good. He argues that because Obama wants to finance what is basically a national healthcare plan and end the war in Iraq by taxing the rich, and this process, even if taking every penny from the rich, is unfeasible, that he is overreaching, and the dire economic consequences that could happen if some of Obama's plans came true shouldn't be feared because they simply won't happen.
Okay, now I see where I went wrong in interpreting the article. Murchison NEVER praises Obama, and I don't know how I missed that. He is simply betting that Obama's plans will never come to fruition because the President is overreaching. I think he is wrong. I think Obama's plans, especially with the Iraq war and national healthcare, can get done, and that has nothing to do with him overtaxing the rich. I guess we will have to see how things work out, but I just interpreted this article to be a very pessimistic view of the man in the White House.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Week 3 Blog
Bobby Jindal Shows True Colors
An article on CNN.com goes into detail about how Bobby Jindal, Republican governor from Louisiana, has drawn criticism for his remark that "instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington."
Now, let's think about what he just said. He is the governor of Louisiana, a state far too familiar than it would like to be with national disasters. Everybody remembers about when Katrina hit and left New Orleans in wreckage that still has not been completely renovated. So now that part of the Obama stimulus package includes giving the United States Geological Survey money to survey volcano-rich areas of the Pacific Northwest, Jindal has a problem with it. People in Washington state can remind him about the disaster that many endured during the Mount St. Helens eruption of 1980. Natural disasters happen, and it's best to be aware of the risks and be prepared to stop such disasters from happening, or at least alert people when they will be happening. Not to be forgotten, this part of legislation creates more jobs for the USGS, and in this economy, anything that produces another American job is a positive and should not be taken lightly.
It seems that all Bobby Jindal, like a lot of Republicans these days, wants to do is play politics. Instead of using reason, or at least pretending like you want to hear somebody out and at least settle, the Republicans will not negotiate, and in the process they are setting a bad example for our nation. Maybe one day Jindal will learn.
An article on CNN.com goes into detail about how Bobby Jindal, Republican governor from Louisiana, has drawn criticism for his remark that "instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington."
Now, let's think about what he just said. He is the governor of Louisiana, a state far too familiar than it would like to be with national disasters. Everybody remembers about when Katrina hit and left New Orleans in wreckage that still has not been completely renovated. So now that part of the Obama stimulus package includes giving the United States Geological Survey money to survey volcano-rich areas of the Pacific Northwest, Jindal has a problem with it. People in Washington state can remind him about the disaster that many endured during the Mount St. Helens eruption of 1980. Natural disasters happen, and it's best to be aware of the risks and be prepared to stop such disasters from happening, or at least alert people when they will be happening. Not to be forgotten, this part of legislation creates more jobs for the USGS, and in this economy, anything that produces another American job is a positive and should not be taken lightly.
It seems that all Bobby Jindal, like a lot of Republicans these days, wants to do is play politics. Instead of using reason, or at least pretending like you want to hear somebody out and at least settle, the Republicans will not negotiate, and in the process they are setting a bad example for our nation. Maybe one day Jindal will learn.
Obama Will Lay Out 8 Keys to Healthcare reform
According to an article on Yahoo!, Obama and his administration will soon lay down a 10-year, $634 billion reserve for healthcare expansion in America. The plan, according to some Obama sources, is to "aim for universality."
Once again, I am pleasantly surprised by Barack Obama, who will announce his plan, along with his eight principles for the plan, on Thursday. I believe everybody should have healthcare, and if this article is reliable, then this is a step in that direction.
Before the opposition cries foul, Obama's plan is to pay for half of the plan by putting a tax hike on Americans making more than $250,000 a year. Let's be honest. Those that are making that kind of money do not have any trouble affording healthcare, and will not really notice that much if a little bit of a tax increase is put on to their income so some less fortunate people can see a doctor.
Once again, Republicans do not like this, and Democrats love this. So, who can we trust? How about Ron Pollack, executive director for Families USA. He says of the healthcare plan, "What is so remarkable is within 24 hours of saying health care reform must be done, the president showed his commitment to putting significant money on the table in a fiscally responsible way."
There you have it. Somebody in the business of health care reform likes the idea, and so do I. We won't have universal healthcare for awhile, but at least we will be able to allow our nation's less fortunate have affordable healthcare. And yes, I realize it is at the rich's expense, but quite frankly, I don't see why they should be complaining. They will still be fortunate after the tax hike, others around them aren't as fortunate. Obama is serving the greater good, and they should accept that fact.
Once again, I am pleasantly surprised by Barack Obama, who will announce his plan, along with his eight principles for the plan, on Thursday. I believe everybody should have healthcare, and if this article is reliable, then this is a step in that direction.
Before the opposition cries foul, Obama's plan is to pay for half of the plan by putting a tax hike on Americans making more than $250,000 a year. Let's be honest. Those that are making that kind of money do not have any trouble affording healthcare, and will not really notice that much if a little bit of a tax increase is put on to their income so some less fortunate people can see a doctor.
Once again, Republicans do not like this, and Democrats love this. So, who can we trust? How about Ron Pollack, executive director for Families USA. He says of the healthcare plan, "What is so remarkable is within 24 hours of saying health care reform must be done, the president showed his commitment to putting significant money on the table in a fiscally responsible way."
There you have it. Somebody in the business of health care reform likes the idea, and so do I. We won't have universal healthcare for awhile, but at least we will be able to allow our nation's less fortunate have affordable healthcare. And yes, I realize it is at the rich's expense, but quite frankly, I don't see why they should be complaining. They will still be fortunate after the tax hike, others around them aren't as fortunate. Obama is serving the greater good, and they should accept that fact.
Biden to Make Sure States Use Stimulus Money Properly
Joe Biden is not really following the role most Vice Presidents serve. He isn't afraid to state his mind about issues. However, in regards to the distribution of the stimulus money, Biden may be talking just enough.
According to a report on MSNBC.com, Biden will make sure that states distribute the stimulus money provided to them quickly and effectively, making sure that the money is being used to help Americans needing Medicaid and housing, for example. He said that if states choose to use the funds improperly, the Obama administration will take some of it back. Biden plans to meet with government officials each week to find out how they are spending the federal government's money, and he has stated that he will be a pain in the neck and is not afraid to embarrass violaters on television.
Okay, so maybe Biden is using a bit too many scare tactics. But he has a point. This is a lot of money being doled out to each state, and in order for the stimulus bill to work, the money needs to be spent the way that the Obama administration desires it to be spent. If states don't spend it the way they are required to, then obviously some punishment is necessary. I like the fact that Biden is going to be right up on the states to ensure that they do what is right. This shows me that this bill will be used correctly and actually have a positive effect. Republican states cannot just protest the bill by spending money on things not approved by the federal government. If they choose to reject some of the funds, then the people of the state should be really mad, because a state that is in need of money should never reject money solely on political grounds. However, if that is the case, then great, that money that the state does not want can be given to a state that appreciates the money and follows the rules. It's their choice whether or not to spend the money, but if they do, they better make sure they stick to the requirements.
Joe Biden is not really following the role most Vice Presidents serve. He isn't afraid to state his mind about issues. However, in regards to the distribution of the stimulus money, Biden may be talking just enough.
According to a report on MSNBC.com, Biden will make sure that states distribute the stimulus money provided to them quickly and effectively, making sure that the money is being used to help Americans needing Medicaid and housing, for example. He said that if states choose to use the funds improperly, the Obama administration will take some of it back. Biden plans to meet with government officials each week to find out how they are spending the federal government's money, and he has stated that he will be a pain in the neck and is not afraid to embarrass violaters on television.
Okay, so maybe Biden is using a bit too many scare tactics. But he has a point. This is a lot of money being doled out to each state, and in order for the stimulus bill to work, the money needs to be spent the way that the Obama administration desires it to be spent. If states don't spend it the way they are required to, then obviously some punishment is necessary. I like the fact that Biden is going to be right up on the states to ensure that they do what is right. This shows me that this bill will be used correctly and actually have a positive effect. Republican states cannot just protest the bill by spending money on things not approved by the federal government. If they choose to reject some of the funds, then the people of the state should be really mad, because a state that is in need of money should never reject money solely on political grounds. However, if that is the case, then great, that money that the state does not want can be given to a state that appreciates the money and follows the rules. It's their choice whether or not to spend the money, but if they do, they better make sure they stick to the requirements.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)