Obama facing defiant foreign countries

President Obama is clearly already taking some very strong steps in bettering the United State's foreign relations. It says a lot about his charisma and intelligence that other countries are willing to listen to ideas on how to better their economies as we are trying to improve ours. It is reassuring that in our time of economic crisis, our government is trying to assist the rest of the world as well as ourselves, because if the rest of the world doesn't prosper than we will not prosper either. Each country is dependent on good relations with each other in terms of peace, alliances, and for the exchange of various goods.

Obama will also be having discussions with NATO, about the Afghanistan war, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer states “I hope that Afghanistan will not be Obama’s war, because it should be owned by all of us," but he also stated that “Europe will never be able to match the numbers of the Americans in Afghanistan,” Mr. de Hoop Scheffer said. The NATO summit meeting, he said, “will not be about troop contributions.”

When reading an article such as this one, the entire time i was forced to think about what other countries opinions on Americans are, we are still a very imperialistic country, and sometimes I think that we are clearly in no way justified to lecture other countries on various topics, such as the economy, and diplomatic relations, because clearly we are struggling in those aspects as well. Luckily, President Obama is already looked at as a possible hero, even among other nations, this will carry him only a certain distance, hopefully his ability to convey his ideas through rhetoric will carry him further, because America needs a President that wont insult other nations and get shoes thrown at his head.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/washington/29global.html?_r=1&ref=politics&pagewanted=print

We call this Patriotism?

Oyez oyez oyez, let it be known that the "Freedom Tower" will now referred to as One World Trade Center, which also serves as its address. This mere side note in modern American history has caused quite a stir of late, and it it this that I find astounding. What truly bewilders me is that the headline of this New York Post article read "Money Trumps Patriotism." Have we truly slipped so far that we define our own patriotism by the words that we use? Call me slightly existential, but shouldn't patriotism be measured in the actions some one takes. Surely Serving in the armed services, the peace corps, and public office (responsibly of course) are patriotic, but how about working on the books, disposing of old motor oil properly, taking the initiative to make an educated vote. I want to know how many of the self-righteous %^&*$ that are denouncing the Port Authority for this decision Have done anything other than talk patriotic. How many of them slapped a nice big American flag magnet on their foreign made car? How many cheat every other person by evading taxes? How many are to lazy to recycle and allow their towns landfill fill even quicker, costing their neighbors more? I believe the word patriot carries a great weight, and much respect. It should be rewarded only to those who merit it and to claim that the name of any building is patriotic does an injustice to all of those who have earned it.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03272009/news/regionalnews/this_is_not_the_freedom_tower_161568.htm

This is my March post to the blog.

A.I.G.'s Bonus Extravaganza

Click here for the article



American International Group (A.I.G.) is the leading insurance and financial company of the world. It recently received more than $170 billion from the government to avoid financial ruin, but huge bonuses were still given to employees anyway. Jack Lynch reported, “The highest bonus was $6.4 million.” There is clearly no reason why A.I.G should be handing out enormous bonuses during an economic recession. Being “contractually obligated” is not a good enough reason for Americans.

The American people strongly disapprove of A.I.G.’s bonus extravaganza. According to the CBS News Poll, “83% said they thought the company could have found a way not to pay [the employees].”

Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo announced that some A.I.G. bonus recipients were giving back their bonuses. When I first heard this announcement, I wondered where this money goes now that it is returned. Will the money be sent to foreign banks now that it has reentered the company? According to Michelle Malkin, A.I.G. will continue to “bail out the rest of the world with your tax dollars.”

We must pay attention to the fine details. Yes, we were victorious in stopping executives from receiving millions of dollars, but now how do we control where this bailout money is sent to next? Trust has been in short supply lately.

Hopefully, Americans will realize that A.I.G. executives weren’t the only ones who were given huge bonuses from the government. Wall Street is a bigger culprit than A.I.G. but it hasn’t been given the spotlight yet. The bonuses that were received by A.I.G. employees were jokes compared to what Wall Street bankers usually receive.

Obama touts budget as 'economic blueprint'

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29736740/

President Obama is being criticized for attempting to take on too many problems at one time. However he is defending his proposal for a $3.6 trillion dollar budget which will fix the economy while overhauling healthcare, energy, and education. In response to the criticism, Obama said, "To kick these problems down the road for another four years or another eight years would be to continue the same irresponsibility that led us to this point. That's not why I ran for this office. I didn't come here to pass on our problems to the next president or the next generation." Members of congress feel that he should focus specifically on fixing the banking crisis first. Obama said his team is working agressively on that issue, but he feels that real economic recovery will come from multiple actions taken at the same time. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad and his House counterpart, Rep. John Spratt Jr. are two to express their skepticism about Obama's budget. Conrad said he anticipates that the fiscal picture will be worse than predicted by Obama's budget, which will lead to less spending on Obama's inital plans of the budget and more to be spent on decreasing the deficit. However Obama is predicting that by the end of his current term in office, the deficit will decrease from $1.75 trillion to $533 billion. Republicans feel that his budget spends, borrows, and taxes too much. In 2011 he will begin to raise taxes on individuals making over $200 thousand and families making over $250 thousand. Obama says this is the framework for lasting wealth, instead of creating the illusion of prosperity. On the other hand, some feel that it does not meet the immediate needs of the country, which they feel is most important. I think that it makes more sense for a long term recovery plan. A quick fix lasts a few years and the effects will fade away. A well thought out plan that causes long term recovery is the best thing this country needs right now. I think this disagreement over a bill is a good example of partisan politics, and this disagreement can lead to gridlock. I don't fell that there is a biased slant in this article, it was just informative and explained both sides of the argument.

Global Stimulus Worries

Source:
New York Times

Though, the real 2009 summit for the G-20 is not until April 2nd in London, this past week world finance ministers met in Washington to discuss a coordinated strategy to combating the global recession. Despite having come out the meeting with an agreement to cooperate in doing "whatever action is necessary" to fix the crisis, there are still widely varying views on how a global stimulus should be implemented.

The United States, Japan and Britain are among the strongest supporters for a government stimulus that will restore consumer demand. Countries like France and German remain wary of adding to their national debts and would instead like to see more regulation and oversight of the markets to prevent this crisis from getting any worse. China, despite its support for the stimulus, has expressed concerns about U.S. deficit spending and its effect on Treasury bills that China has invested heavily in.

The group did, however, release a statement in which it committed to increase funding to the International Monetary Fund in order to help smaller, developing countries. This general consensus that large scale action is needed seems to have pleased both Treasury Secretary Geithner and President Obama, even with varying ideas on how to approach the stimulus.

Considering the fact that the G-20 collectively represents about 85% of the world's wealth, a large scale global stimulus plan seems to be the best answer to stop the economic contraction as long as it directly attributes to reaching the G-20's pledged goals of restoring consumer demand, creating and preserving jobs, and restoring global economic growth. Providing aid to struggling developing countries will be vital in not only helping those governments maintain sufficient food and medical supplies, but will also boost global trade as consumer confidence returns. This will in turn benefit developed countries as manufacturing and production of goods increases, leading to a return in overall global economic growth.

It will be important for other countries to provide appropriate increases in financing to the I.M.F., in order to accumulate an effective amount of stimulus money that can bring enough aid to enough countries to make a significant difference. The I.M.F. should also step in to oversee exactly how stimulus money is being spent in order to take pressure off already struggling national governments.

Overall, though a global stimulus seems to be the best answer, it is a little worrying in that it requires a great deal of patience and a great deal of faith in aided countries that they will help to increase consumer demand. Unfortunately, I doubt we'll see anything like Recovery.gov, which is supposed to provide transparency on how the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act money is being spent, due to the scale of a possible global stimulus.

We'll just have to wait until the April summit to see what the G-20 decides to do.

For some the economic recession means losing their jobs, or giving up small luxuries. For others the economic recession is a chance to get a bonus, along with "retention payments" as if they were not making enough money already. Yet, those companies asking for the most help also seem to be giving out the highest wages. AIG recently received $170 billion in federal bailout money, yet they are giving $165 million in bonuses and compensation. Economic adviser Austan Goolsbee tried to have AIG lower their bonuses, but AIG should not be allowed to give out any bonuses. If a company has not made enough of a profit to hand out bonuses, they should not be using federal money to do so, especially when the company is in jeopardy of filing for bankruptcy. AIG CEO Edward Liddy had agreed that the 25 top paid AIG employees would reduce their pay to $1 and all other employees would reduce their pay by 10% and all other compensation would be eliminated.  AIG defended their bonuses by claiming they were legally bound to give compensation. AIG lost $62 billion in the fourth quarter of 2008, and if they intend on recovering from the recession, I think the last thing they should be spending money on is bonuses and compensation for already over paid employees.  

P.S. Nick thinks that there should be a binding contract for companies, and if they take bailout money, and choose not to give up things like bonuses and compensation, then they cannot take the money and file for bankruptcy and have a spending freeze.   

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/15/AIG.bonuses/index.html

This Week's New Focus

President Obama has decided to not only worry about the economy this week. He has made the decision to focus on the public's health including the safety of the foods that we eat. President Obama has said that the way we deal with stress is by eating. With the economy the way it is, food and stress have become very closely related.

President Obama has declared that Food Safety today is unacceptable. The government has overlooked checking on 95% of food plants which has resulted in Obama announcing new rules for food regulation. He has proposed that the Food and Drug Administration try to find ways of new funding.

Mr. Obama wants the United States to continue being the safest place in the world for purchasing and digesting food and medicine. He said that this may change because of all of the problems we have had in the last few years. Problems such as contaminated spinach, salmonella in peppers and tomatoes, and this year's peanut product contamination.

A main reason for all of the problems are many of the laws and regulations for the food safety of America have not been updated since their creation in the time of Teddy Roosevelt. Another reason is that our system of enforcement and inspection is so widely dispersed. It makes it hard for the government to share information and work together. The FDA has also been under funded and short staffed. These problems are hazardous to America's health.

What Next?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/09/omb-laments-weak-economy/?page=2

Of late the GOP has been speaking of letting some of the troubled banks and automotive companies fail. This of course stemming from the growing public distrust for not only bailouts, but the recipients of the bailouts whom they believe, and are partially right to believe, caused the bailout. Looking solely at the last ten years this recession could be pinned to the large brokerage houses and companies who became more secretive and allowed their executive to employee pay ratio to spin out of control. But those same accusing consumers must also look in the mirror; did they buy a house they couldn't afford with a mortgage they didn't understand? Did they put their life savings in a market with or without knowing the risk? In the long run, however, it appears the stars simply aligned against us: the SEC went lax in the 1970's, someone had the grand idea sell adjustable rate mortgages, then the idea to bundle them and sell them as stock, then oil prices shot through the roof and the bubble burst. Now not the be a little skeptical but whats one not ideologically centered reason the GOP may want the banks to fail? Maybe so that in 2010 and 2012 they can bash the Dems with the fact that major companies fail within a year of Obama's election (which they encouraged).
Given the latest circumstances I too have been wondering if one the current bailouts in place were enough and from there would we have to allow capitalist darwinism take hold. This idea has both pros and cons. If we were to allow some of the biggest American banks and corporations to fail we could open the door for the next generation of thinkers to grab a foothold, and if we were to dramitically revamp the SEC at the same time these thinkers would adapt to regulated business, and would nothing other than stringent regulation. Because they would know no other way of thinking they wouldn't be as daunted by it, unlike the current suits who can't understand that bailout money is not to be used for golf. under this plan there would certainly be job loss and an undoubtably worse economic climate but it would be temporary. The con is that we don't know how long temporary means. It could be a year before economic secondary succession takes place, or, worst case scenario, our economy regresses to they of an agriculture orientied barter economy before succession occurs. Although the gravest of the choices I feel it may be best in the long run, whether it be two or fifty years from now we would see a vibrant, reborn economy that would, from our ability to learn from our mistakes, quickly be regulated to ensure economic stability. It would also be interesting to analyze the recently passed stimulus bill and determine which scenarios it would suite better the let'em fail or recusitate'em method.
Now to criticize the GOP critics of Geither a) hes been working without a staff, which according to the article has had three recent nomination which will be sure to aid Geithner and b) I doubt any of his GOP critics have nearly as much knowledge of economics as he does.


PS This is my article for the month of February, March will be coming shortly, yes, I know I'm a little late.

Obama Ponders Outreach to Elements of the Taliban

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/us/politics/08obama.html?ref=politics

We have established the fact we are not wining any of the wars taking place in Afghanistan and Iraq. So now what are our options? we can either A)keep fighting when we obviously see were not making any means of progress and waste i mean spend billions of dollars or B)we can withdraw our troops and devastate both the countries even with addition of possibly igniting a civil war. Those options sound rather ...bad? Either way the American people have to pay whether it be out of there pockets finaclly wise or there diginty being smothered because of an early withdrawal(aka defeat).However once again barrack has come to our rescue with yet another bold plan. Why not negotiate with the same people who attacked us in the first place? At this point its worth it but to the American people it symbolizes a white flag.To my disbelief there are soldiers who actually agree to this. "What an outrage that means" "we lose" ill never give in to my enemy" said by US veterans I ask why are they fighting in the first place?? Are we winning? how many more lives must we take ?Do we not have enough problems in our country as is?What and who do the guys are fighting even look like? Maybe i am overreacting but this war (which technically speaking is not a war since the last one war declared by congress: world war 2) seems as a lose lose situation. To me outreaching the Taliban seems like a good idea, considering the other options we have.plus the benefit with working with Pakistan government is that we get to "snatch up terrorists" ( like we have found many need to remember we cant seem to find the major one aka osma bin laden) Regardless the United states is known to win all if not at least a majority of major wars (the important ones anyway the ones that affected us) it seems as if this is one "war" we may have to declare as the first major lost. (the American lives lost is far more then amount loss in the 9/11 attacks and no one knows for sure why we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan in the first place. not to mention we were winning but not were not and most soldiers admit they want to come home. So what s so bad about discussing with Taliban again? it doesn't seem so far fetched when you really think about it...

The Top Three People who Should really Shut Their Mouths (While they still have their Dignity...)

Some Pundits & other Politically associated People are listed below from number Three to number One. I'm not going to be bias here, at least i don't intend to. Enjoy... (Sorry 2 days late!)

3) Blago...

So, Rod... I hear your writing a new book about the "phoniness and hypocrisy" of state government officials. I wonder what that'll include, or better yet what the cover will look like? Probably something like this: There you see Rod Blagojevich sitting solemnly in his jail cell on a hard mattress, and behind him you see etched on the wall, carved into the cement: "Rod: The Truth about State Political Corruption, It Wasn't Just Me Ya'know!". Man Blago you crack me up! Whose going to be co-author Elliot Spitzer? Well I think I've said enough. At least I know when to call it quits!

2) Olbermann

'Oh God!' is right. What were you thinking? We all know your a liberal pundit but how low can you be to crack a joke about Republican Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal straight to his face (technically). After Barack Obama's address you blatantly said 'Oh God!' as Jindal entered the view of the camera! If that's not horrifically rude than what is? He's giving a response, god forbid he say something off-key or negative about a Democrat, No Sir! Now I know it could have been Matthews so don't worry this is for him too. What's wrong with you man! That's O'Rielly territory your stepping in. Get your act straight Keith!

1) RUSH!

Freedom of speech is one thing but saying you want the President to fail openly is just absurd! Saying you want Obama to fail means you want the country to fail. That's what I don't get about you extreme right/left pundits! You look at the issue at hand and take an extreme stand and instead of working to compromise you bad-mouth each other. You sir are unpatriotic!!! I don't care who the president is, you don't call for his failure, 1) In times of economic turmoil AND 2) In his first 100 days in office! Give it a chance Rush! You are my number One in my book, number One to shut the hell up and keep it shut!!!

http://www.azcentral.com/ent/celeb/articles/2009/03/03/20090303blagojevich.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/25/msnbc-introduction-gov-jindal-oh-god/

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/04/limbaugh.mocked/index.html?iref=newssearch

Bush V. Obama

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/01/gates-says-obama-more-analytical-than-bush/

According the Secretary of Defense the Honorable Robert M. Gates there is a difference betweeen the Obama Administration and the Bush Administration and how they go about certain things. According to Gates Obama is more open to differing opinion. Obama he states is more "analytical." When in conferences with his fellow cabinet members and assistants Obama goes out of his way to hear each opinion. If an individual does not speak up President Obama calls on them to make sure their side is out in the open and taken into account. Gates also stated that former President Bush wasn't ignorant to anothers opinion, in fact he welcomed different ideas. However, if somone had not spoken Bush didn't go out of his way to make sure that that individual was heard.

From this information we know things about both administrations, one that Obama is upholding his end of the bargain; in that he takes in all ideas and considers them. Two, we find that Bush was not necessarily the ignoramous that the media and various persons made him out to be, he understood the importance of differing thought.