This was in this morning's newspaper as a letter to the editor. I found it interesting because it gives an unfavored opinion on Obama. I have a neutral Obama stance. My political beliefs lie deeper than a single man. That's not the point. I'd like to post the letter I read and just want to hear responses.
There is no right or wrong answer here, just your reaction to the letter.
"Editor,
After 12 years of Republican rule and failed policies, Americans turn their backs on change after just two years. Despite the fact that the Democratic Congress pulled the country back from the brink of economic disaster, and despite the fact that the stimulus and economic policies of the Obama administration have saved or created more than three million jobs (Wall Street Journal, July 14), including 225,000 in Texas alone. We are indeed a fickle nation now that panics when it does not see immediate results. In early 2009, the nation sat on the edge of the abyss of a brutal recession because of Bush administration incorrect financial policies , tax cuts for the top 2 percent and a war in Iraq. Monthly job loss was 750,000 because of the destructive ideology of the Republicans in Congress.
President Obama and his financial team stabilized our economy, stopped the housing market free-for-all, saved the American Auto Industry, and charted a course for the full recovery of our financial system. However, since this plan entails more than 18 months to complete, and the uninformed in this country continue to get their news from the right-wing propaganda machine, Fox News, we will continue to cower from progressive ideas to our ultimate detriment.
If one truly wants to understand the crisis the Obama administration averted, they would do well to read Alan S. Binder's "How the Great recession was Brought to an End."
Please enlighten me on what happened. From what I know though, Americans aren't going to get free medical pot dolled out to them.
Marijuana shouldn't be free anyway. It should be strictly privatized. I would rather pay for marijuana than have the government give it to me, regulated, for free.
Anyway, we have to understand how current insurance companies work. Current insurance companies are unable to cover people who are high risk or have pre existing conditions because they would go into debt and eventually go out of business if they covered those people.
The health care bill that was passed stated that insurance companies can not pick and choose between children. If you cover one child, then you must cover them all. Insurance companies have 2 options.
1. They can either cover all children, which will result in them going into debt and going out of business.
2. Or they can cover no children at all, which is going on right now.
Obama is pushing for a single payer system. His idea of having more choices is absolute BS.
"The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons."
Pfff...was he even sworn in yet?
Well so far I haven't really seen the US being shoved back into it's Golden Ages. It's merely a nation with a first rate military (no doubt), a chaotic political system, an inexperienced president with a lot of bluster, stretching it's tentacles over the globe.
Bailouts are a short term solution! If a big company goes out of business, people will lose jobs... then find jobs elsewhere! By bailing auto companies out, you give the rich 2 percent *******s you hate so much a second chance! This hurts smaller businesses! So make up your mind! Do you want to tax the 2 percent more, or do you want to bail them out? Stop the double standards!
You're wrong even there - bailouts are no solution. They only grant a mirage of progress, but secretly do nothing. Read the Parable of the Broken Window.
Bailouts are a short term solution! If a big company goes out of business, people will lose jobs... then find jobs elsewhere! By bailing auto companies out, you give the rich 2 percent *******s you hate so much a second chance! This hurts smaller businesses! So make up your mind! Do you want to tax the 2 percent more, or do you want to bail them out? Stop the double standards!
They can't find jobs elsewhere when everyone else is being laid off too.
They can't find jobs elsewhere when everyone else is being laid off too.
Explain to me how you create something from nothing. Doesn't this money have to come from somewhere? If the money was printed, then you are just devaluing everyone else's money - you're not creating wealth at all. Why do people have jobs anyway? Why do business owners hire people? It is because these types of transactions are mutually beneficial. When people are being laid off, it is because the money the business owner spends on them is worth more than the contribution that person has to the company.
You're wrong even there - bailouts are no solution. They only grant a mirage of progress, but secretly do nothing. Read the Parable of the Broken Window.
Actually, I fail to see how the broken window fallacy and bailouts are related. If you would care to explain the relation, that would be great.
Same as Nemo, the Broken Window Fallacy merely mentions that resources spent in on way could have been spent on something else. The parable takes a strictly microeconomic view of the situation, and ignores any macroeconomic factors which may come into play.
The fallacy in a nutshell states that
they[the onlookers] considered only the positive effects for the glazier and those he may now purchase from without considering the equally harmful effects for the shopkeeper and those he now cannot purchase from.
So you're saying that people assume the bailout gives positive benefits but actually causes detriment to most? I don't think a single fallacy argument can succinctly summarise this economic crisis.
The reason why the broken window fallacy does not fit into bailouts is because the fallacy debunks the idea of profit made off of the destruction of property. Bailouts are something completely different.
I have no problem with rich people, but if they spend their money foolishly, then they should not be bailed out. I have a problem when rich people who spend foolishly remain rich merely because the government gives them our tax dollars!
