We'll take it, we'll take it!

Click here for the article



The Federal Government is taking $150 billion from the economic stimulus plan and handing it over to the states.

Republican governors, such as Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Butch Otter of Idaho, have refused the money that has been doled out to their states. They don’t want to expand their budgets permanently with money that will run out in two years or less. For example, by accepting the money, these governors would have to expand unemployment insurance benefits to $25 a week. When the money runs out, the states would have to pay. Deficits would plague them. These governors rather not deal with an unnecessary dilemma.

However…

Our senators, Charles E. Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, are asking for the money that these representatives are refusing. They want to invest in education and new infrastructure and create more jobs. Seven billion dollars can go a long way.

The New York Senators aren’t the only ones who are pleading for the unwanted money.

Senator Jennifer Granholm of Michagan exclaimed, “We’ll take it, we’ll take it, we’ll take your money. South Carolina, I’ll take your money. Louisiana, we’ll take it; we’ve got plenty of work here, plenty of jobs that we’d like to create here.”

Well, it is an economic crisis, isn’t it? Shouldn’t we take the money and run?

I don’t like the strings that are attached to these laws. Yes, I want new infrastructure and more jobs, but I don’t want expanded unemployment insurance that will kick us in the behind later. I believe Mr. Jindal agrees with me.

I guess we have to decide for ourselves. Take the money and help people in poverty now or refuse the money and avoid hell later. People want relief now, but they’ll cry later when taxes increase.

Stimulus Package to save America's Railroads

Added at the last minute to the Stimulus bill is an allotment of money ($8 billion to be exact) that will go towards developing high speed trains. High speed train technology has been used in other countries for years, while the U.S. instead has been expanding it's highways. The article focuses on the many people that believe it is not a wise use this country's money, however the vast benefits of high speed train travel seem to be excluded. First off building a new rail system will create jobs, an important task in increasingly bad economic times. As unemployment rates rise it seems necessary that the government find some way to create jobs and once the trains are complete there are still jobs available, being that someone has to run them. Fixing our outdated, falling apart rails is also good for the environment because efficient trains will cut down air traffic (if travel time by train was cut down to as long as a flight takes why fly when your not crossing oceans?), and road traffic, especially for companies who use trucks to transport goods. Trains are pretty much a win win situation. to be fair the article does make a good point that the current amount of money will not go very far, but that does not mean it would be a waste. Don't we have to start somewhere both with new technology and with getting our country back into shape. Trains are not a thing pf the past like many might think, just because we have cars and planes doesn't mean trains don't still serve an important purpose. No, a train will not save the world, no matter how fast it goes, but it just might help and it seems to me those people in Washington, might want to get all the facts before they judge this addition too quickly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/20rail.html?ref=politics

Will Recovery Funds Save The Economy?

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is expected to be signed next week, and will hopefully help create more jobs and save programs such as medicaid. Each state is going to get different percents of money based on their need, the state money only makes up 69% of the total bill and the other money will go towards job creating investment programs. the allocations of money are decided upon the GDP of 2007 for each state. Money will go to programs such as infrastructure projects and clean energy programs. Yet does the American economy need all the things the new bill is supplying? Taxpayers will face high increases for 2009 and if the bill does not work the economy faces and an even deeper recession which will be more difficult and costly to get out of. If most of the people in the senate do not agree with the bill then shouldn't it be reexamined and only spend money on necessary programs?  

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/02/compromise_map.html 

Obama Tries to Fix Detroit

President Obama has decided against his plan for appointing a single "car czar" to oversee the revamping of the auto industry. Obama is instead designating the Treasury Secretary and the chairman of the National Economic Council to oversee the Presidential panel on the auto industry. The sudden change has come from the G.M. and Chrysler race to complete their reconstructing plans by this Tuesday. The plans are supposed to show progress in cutting long-term costs as a way to keep their loans. Advisers said that in order to reconstruct the companies, sacrifices are needed from the auto workers as well as their creditors, shareholders, and executives running the companies.

President Obama had considered appointing a "car czar", but the Presidential panel has decided to appoint multiple officials from several agencies instead. G.M. and Chrysler are expected to request more loans in order to stay a float in what is expected to be another bad year in auto sales. Both companies are also expected to continue in cutting jobs, plants, and models in their reconstructing plans. They have been trying to create new jobs that will earn half as much as their current employees. Cars sales are expected to be about 10 or 11 million, much lower than their average 16.2 million a year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/business/economy/16auto.html?ref=politics

Obama Slows Troop Boost Decision

According to President Obama's chief spokesman, the president will be making his decision regarding how many troops will be sent to Afghanistan, and when. However, President Obama is refusing to be rushed into his decision, which surprised officials at the Pentagon. This is an early sign that the president will be more independent than military leaders had expected. Officials had predicted that Obama would be making his decision within days, but they found themselves still waiting on an answer. I think that this is a wise move in the long run, because major decisions like this should not be rushed into and made hastily. The President is better off thinking about the situation until he feels he has reached his best decision.

Obama's pace in making a decision is contradictory of what George W. Bush had done with regards to requests for troops. Former President Bush had usually been quick to sign requests for additional troops, and he rarely engaged in lengthy conversations on the issue. The exception to this was his reluctance to the surge of troops into Iraq in 2006 and 2007. Overall, President Obama seems to be doing a better job with weighing the consequences than Bush did. John Nagl, president of the Center for a New American Security and a retired Army officer said, "I'm personally hopeful that President Obama will do something that President Bush didn't do particularly well, I think he's thinking through the implications of committing troops, not just the first order but the second and third order effects." The request for troops has evolved into a greater thing, it is now a discussion about goals and methods in Afghanistan. The Pentagon has asked for a study that would examine the risks of sending additional troops to Afghanistan.

I don't think that this story has an obvious slant to it, because it seems very informative. It just focuses on the issue at hand and the conflict that is surrounding it. However it might be seen as liberal because it has quotes of opinions of people who support Obama's delayed decision, but otherwise it is unbiased.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18888.html

Up Next For Bankers: A Flogging

Image source: Google Images
Article: NYT (click picture for direct link)

My first reaction: "Oh my." The first thing i noticed was how vulgar some of the quotations were, not that I think it's undeserved, however i wasn't expecting that. My favorite was from the Los Angeles Times op-ed write Pat Morrison, “I want groveling,...I want show-trial sweating and stammering. I want their nine-figure bonus checks endorsed over to the rest of us. I want my 401(k) money back. I want blood; I’m a vegetarian, but I’d make an exception for a smoking plate of C.E.O. en brochette." Wow.
Tomorrow eight chief executives from big banks will be heading to Washington to explain to the American people how they are using the money from Bush's stimulus plan called the Troubled Asset Relief Program. If the executives aren't effective in their groveling they won't be seeing any of the next $350 billion in the TARP plan. I think it's absolutely ridiculous that these banks are going under because of the executives' shameless pursuit of a profit, which I'm pretty sure they make anyways because of their million dollar bonuses! Oh, Bank of America needs a bailout? That's interesting because they didn't have any problem sponsoring an event at the Super Bowl. The questions asked by the columist were very legitmate especially the first asking the executives to outline their 12 months, 24 months and five year plans because if taxpayers are going to be investing portions of their income without their consent and during such a fiancially crimpling time they at least deserve to know that a crisis of this magnitude won't occur again in the future. Question number eight was by far my favorite since I am do support Obama's 500,000 compensation cap. The fact that the columist uses the executives' words against them is absolutely brillant.
The political slant was clearly liberal beacuse its from the New York Times.

baracks first 100 days....

As America already knows Barack Obama is our first African American president and he is trying so hard to make a good impression.He has been working hard and quite diligently to push forward his economic stimulus bill with an estimate totaling up to 1 trillion.Problem? where exactly is this money going and how will such a large amount of money be controlled? Of course the Obama administration and secretary of state has said they will take control of the matter and issues the plan of action within weeks. The main questions is whats in it for us and how long? The amount of delays and controversy put into this bill is only worsening. Both democrats and republicans argue that this plan could be potentially dangerous or it could end up catastrophic or end up worsening the economy.( like the economy can get much worse then in its current state) He is trying to appoint "worthy and honest" members into his office except they step down; with in my opinion the worst excuses. Senator Judd Greg has stepped down because of "irresolvable conflicts" with the stimulus bill. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson withdrew last month. Health and Human Services secretary-designate Tom Daschle withdrew his nomination last week. All in all if all the people nominated for the position step down because of the stimulus plan and the "possible future conflicts", it is not a good look for Barack and as a result such support for the bill will wither away. Society needs to understand that it is because we did not do anything early on we are in this predicament to begin with. Democrats and republicans have been complaining left and right that this bill should not be pasted and only more problems will arise etc etc. Mean while we are being informed that we are in a recession, jobs loss is increasing by day, house mortgages and foreclosures are increasing as well as inflammation. What i do not understand is why do the same politicians who complain about the bill have not yet come up with another substitute course of action? At least he is doing something and not nothing.


http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/13/news/economy/obama_week_four/index.htm

A New Image

Obama's Outreach to Muslims Won't Achieve Goal
There are better ways to battle totalitarianism.
David Satter 02.02.09

Satter says that Obama is “unlikely to achieve his principal objective, which is to undermine the appeal of al-Qaida” by closing Guantanamo Bay Prison and focusing on a dialogue between nations. On one hand he is correct, closing Guantanamo will certainly not end all extremist hatred. Much of the negative feelings toward America which he discusses are based in religion and therefore nearly impossible to eradicate.
Yet, Satter misses the core of the debate by overlooking the more significant reasons behind Obama’s decision; in the minds of most Americans the closing of this prison is a symbol, a sign of good faith, a first step toward new politics. In a way it may do more for our image of our selves than anything else. In his Inaugural speech he touched upon the idea that we need to take pride in our country again, many Americans see closing Guantanamo as a way to get back to core American values.
“In other words, our actions have, in part, led to the hostility against us, but we are ready to improve. Why, as the victims of terrorism, it was up to us to improve was not explained.” Know your enemy. Wiser words could not be spoken on the issue; instead of trying to understand who, how, and why after September 11th the United States government decided to invade a country (the wrong country indecently). More knowledge among the government and especially amongst the people is needed. We can all agree that war should not be first on the list f responses, when American lives are at stake carful consideration must be given. Perhaps if we knew more about other cultures and religions we would be less likely to label a major section of the world as terrorists and less likely to jump into wars. Of course I am not advocating a no war policy or saying that we should try to understand the motives of terrorists, just that we as a people need to notice how we use these words and not be s quick to judge. When American citizens of Middle Eastern descent are being harassed in this country we can be sure that something in our value system has eroded.
Again, the need for “improvement” it is not about repentance on our part, it is about our country taking pride in its values, in taking the high road and talking before sending in the troops.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/02/obama-muslims-terrorism-opinions-contributors_0202_david_satter.html

Could a 'new' New Deal be the Resolution? Ready to get Depressed!?!

They say history tends to repeat itself, but to what extent? Is our future set in stone?Are we nearing a second Great Depression?

President Barack Obama's honeymoon is over, and the ever vigilant and excruciating eye of the American citizen and the media is fixated on the man's every move. With the economy on the threshold of an endless abyss President Obama has to act fast. We're hanging on to the graying hair of Barack Obama's chinny chin chin. The economic stimulus package also seen as phase one of what we'll call the 'new' New deal could be the answer or it could be the little push to put us over the top, or in this case the bottom. Rock bottom. The cold hard truth is not even the holy and glorious original New Deal was that effective, at least at first.

The New Deal intiated by FDR after has inauguration in 1933 and it's promised effects were little seen in its first 5 to 6 years. According to the article the total hours worked by the average American actaully dipped from prior to FDR's presidency (1930-32) to the New Deal years (1933-39). In fact, between 1930 and 1932 the total hours worked by the average American was 18% below the norm for 1929 (pre-depression) and between 1933 and 1939 it got worse falling to 23% the norm for 1929. Also New Deal policies such as the NIRA (National Industrial Recovery Act) which regulated major steel and auto industries to produce a "fair competition" among the businesses, spelling out what the producers could and could not do. Though FDR strictly believed the competitive factor in business drove the Depression the enacting of the NIRA in the end only caused a nose dive in the economy, stunting production outputs, and raising wages and prices like never before by placing inefficient quotas into the production cycle. The New Deal eventually panned out in the late 1930's but of course not without a major lift in the economy in the 1940's by, you guessed it, World War II. The War brought the economy out of the Depression. War= Need of More weapons = More Production needed = More Jobs = No more Depression...

So, what now? Can the new stimulus package bail out the country or will it take as Obama once said "a good ten years"? Who will be president then? Where will we be? And where the economy be? Who knows? I'll tell you this much...... I certaintly have no clue.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123353276749137485.html