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.
No comments:
Post a Comment