Comment on Bailout from Michael Cackler

I agree that we might have to risk the large amounts of unemployment to avoid the distribution of money to companies that don't even make an effort to help benefit the economy and their employees. Companies such as GM and Ford consist of many employees, those of which are mostly living from paycheck to paycheck. These companies look to employ minorities in order to prosper, giving those an opportunity to support themselves but at the same time benefitting because they don't have to pay them high wages. Though you state that this will be a "quick fix", I do believe that this bailout will also have it's consequences. They are in hopes to benefit just the company, but this bailout somewhat proves that they want to aide in this foiled economy. The only problem is, which companies will this apply to: the more stable and highly-valued companies or ones that the government will continue to babysit. There definitely has to be very strict requirements and dedication to such a bill.

The War on Iraq

It has been declared that the 16 month troop removal plan is will now, in fact, take action. Defensive Secretary Robert M. Gates has expressed to The New York Times that he and President-elect Obama are in good terms. They agree not only on provisions of our nation's foreign policies, but Gates has approved of Obama's appointment of cabinet officers. Obama's intent was to create a team with a large diversity of perspectives on the nation's focus topics that would offer advice and create a solution as one. “I think he has assembled that team,” Mr. Gates said. “There will no doubt be differences among the team, and it will be up to the president to make the decisions.” Though it seems that Mr. Gates hesitated when asked whether he agreed with Obama's 16 month troop removal plan, he did assert that he had full confidence and faith in the president-elect's decision. That is why Obama was put into office. He believes that Obama, as the leader in this nation, will be able to analyze the situation and take matter responsibly. Though Obama would seem to have a lot of power in controlling the future of the United States, Gates still believes that his power as the secretary of defense is still protected because of Obama's approach towards his cabinet. Because this president-elect sees his role in government as the "caretaker" and "devil's advocate", it would be likely that Obama would be chosen as the next president. He doesn't depend on individuality or the influence of only one group of people. Obama wants to accommodate as many perceptions as he can in order to develop the "more" right decision that would best benefit the nation. I think that the government is laying in the hands of the right person.

A Commentary to Cythia's "McCain's Supportive Nature"

As suggested from the title of our classmate's post "McCain's Supportive Nature," there are many aspects of McCain’s motives that have been observed through the many presidential debates that we've seen so far this year. But when it comes down to following through, actions speaks more than words.

McCain encourages the purchase of "more environmentally friendly automobiles." His idea is to insert a five thousand dollar tax credit to participants who purchase these zero carbon emission cars. Though Obama had proposed a seven thousand dollar tax credit to those who purchase even more advanced cars, McCain's theory will help benefit the people, whether financially set or going paycheck to paycheck just to support their family. His method adheres to less strict requirements, expanding profitability to lower income families who cannot afford zero-carbon emissions automobiles. Sounds good, right? But is he actually doing anything to reduce carbon emission? What if the people do not cooperate in the purchasing of these vehicles? Only Obama has an answer. I definitely agree with this assertion of the difference between the two presidential candidates. Even though Obama's plan did not involve having the people purchasing "zero carbon blah blah blah vehicles," he instead had a plan to reduce carbon in our fuels permanently. Instead of depending on a so-called "tax exemption," Obama took initiative and ordered for the lowering of carbon. McCain did in fact wanted to focus a lot of government spending on improving the battery and a lower dependency on foreign fuel, but these topics are not vitally promising. Even if the battery were to improve, would our economy be great enough to have it standard in every car? Can the middle class even afford a "hybrid" car? What happens if our "new fuel resources" aren't as large as we thought? Wouldn't the foreign fuel companies raise their prices as a result of the U.S.' failure to commit to them?

After reading this post by Cynthia, I am even more assured that our nation has smartly chosen soon to be seated President. I agree with her focus on "McCain's Supportive Nature" and that even though he can talk the talk, he barely even walk the walk. His views were deceiving. Obama's were very straightforward, making him the better candidate of a presidential election that is most important in a time of disparity.

The Election

In this year's election, it would not matter which candidate will win. The fact is, Obama and McCain are both vulnerable in some of the responsibilities as the President. It won't matter how well they handle foreign warfare or how long they will last. It'll be the nation's reaction that will determine which direction our country will take. Some threaten to kill Obama; some say it would be stupid to have a president be elected that will probably die within a week of the election. But what the greatest factor is is the how the nation pulls together in a time of "change."

So how will this change affect the nation? Will it be a major breakthrough in a decade full of chaos that has resulted in the presidential term of President George Bush? Or will it bring us into an even heavier burden: a falling economy, the increase in poverty, and an even greater debt to the world around us. McCain promises redemption. Obama promises a slow but sure recollection with many reforms to make sure these problems never happen again. Before you vote in the final days of the election, consider the previous assertions by the two presidential candidates. Can the Republicans redeem themselves after two failing terms by their party leader? Will the reforms by the Democrats benefit us, or is it just a move for their lust for power? There are pros and cons on both sides. It's up to how we deal with them that will determine the consequence of choosing our next president. For more coverage and information on the presidential election go to the following link: 2008 Presidential Election

"Public Ownership, But No Public Control"

Paulson's bailout is a transfer of $700 billion from the government to its banks. What the people don't know is that this money is a collection of public debt that will be taken from the interest payments (in relation to inflation of the mortgages) and will allow for the increase of the number of existing Wall Street billionaires. Nationalization of the banks, which is a crucial point of the bailout, will "coexist" with this conundrum. Paul Craig Roberts believes that this concept is being used to draw the attention of the people to the "big" picture, instead of the numerous loopholes that exist in the bailout. There is no need to distribute tons of public money into the banks. What the government needs to do is attack the problem at its source: troubled and foreclosed mortgages. Instead, they are trying to establish unnecessary institutions to provide "aid" to those financially troubled. As the main source continues to be ignored, the number of failing mortgages will rise causing the country to go into even deeper debt. The country has already hit an all time low, lower in comparison to the Great Depression not too long ago. There has been the introduction of credit swaps, but the idea is insufficient and lacks any beneficial qualities toward the people. Double-counting of assets is also available if a bank purchases a company’s bonds. But as an overall overlook of the bailout, it has been concluded that this bailout was a result of panic and lacks any organization or support from any analysis of the country's past downfall. For more information, click here to view an article.

I believe that the audience of which this article is acknowledged towards would be the people. The people who are unaware of our country's slyness and hunger for greed. The author allows the reader to understand in what position our nation is heading economically and can hopefully figure out where they stand individually. As an individual of this group "the people", I feel that this article should be well noted. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. With his past experiences, especially through such an institution as the Treasury, I believe that Roberts should receive a lot of credit for this article. Due to the support of other articles, and from what I've observed of the stock market for the past week, I am influenced by this author's perspective that this bailout is indeed, not a hoax, but something that should have been passed in a "patient" manner.

"Bail Out the Homeowners!"

Our nation is currently in three levels of debt: personal household debt, financial sector debt and public debt. With these problems coherent to each other, the government is hoping to solve them through a single bailout proposed by Paulson. This bailout states that the banks would be free from this debt and can resume lending loans to the people. It also states that the US treasury will be able to recover from the 700 billion dollar bailout cost, since only a small percentage of the underlying mortgages are bad. According to Paul Craig Roberts, with the support from Yale professors Jonathan Koppel and William Goetzmann, “Paulson’s plan is a fraud.” Though the bailout plan moves the assets from the bank to the treasury, it does not address the main conflict that has caused our nation to fall into this economic crisis. The diminishment of mortgage and home values will continue, if not worsen. The bailout should compensate defaulting homeowners and pay off the mortgages. Instead, it gives the banks more money to bring these homeowners into deeper debt. Koppell and Goetzmann’s main idea is that we can stop this financial problem if we could “restore the value of the mortgage-based derivatives”, which is the core problem. By doing so, it can lead to the halting of the decline in house values and end personal financial depreciation left by local tax bases from “houses being dumped on the market.” With this assertion, I believe that Paul Craig Roberts reveals to the people of our nation what is overshadowed by the government’s “action” towards their so-called aiding our societies economic crisis. The author uses logical appeal in order to give a reasoning towards why our “bailout” is technically not bailing us out, instead bringing us even deeper into a dreary period. Paul Craig Roberts’ approach through logic, I thought, was very effective as I am very convinced that the government would take advantage of this time to provide itself with personal advancement while covering it up with such a project as “aiding the people.” What makes this statement even more influencing is the author’s background. Once an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, during a time where our nation was experiencing similar economic drawbacks that are presently taking place, you would conclude Paul Craig Roberts to be creditable in this argument, well supported by Yale professors Jonathan Kopell and William Goetzmann.

Why the rising tuition?

Have you ever been suspicous of the rising tuition you have to pay for to attend school? According to the legistlature, this needs to be dealt with. "If the cost of milk had risen as fast as the cost of college since 1980, a gallon would be $15." That means that tuition has more than tripled over the last two and a half decades. Why do the universities rise their tuition; do they need the money? The legislature has concluded that universities have risen their tuition in order to make a more profitable approach for the "private foundations". Does this include foundations of the students? When only 4.6 percent is being spent on endowments for the school, it seems that this money is causing the paychecks of the higher branches of the universities to increase ever so "slightly". Harvard and yale alone have about $60 billion in endowments. 4.6 percent of that is $2.76 billion. Now you know where the other $57.24 billion goes. But the national universities have approached this argument with much support. "A lot of the things that needed to be corrected were self-corrected", meaning that the universities were doing their job and following up on their major role as an institution. They could also argue that only 3 percent of the nation's students attend those high-tuition universities. So even if the legislature may be able to perform a trial against the nation's universities, their argument would only effect very few of them. So if you want to know more about where you're money (or "tuition") is going, or want to see if any of this document can support your views on the rising tuition, then go to the link below and read the document.








Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/education/09college.html?

_r=1&ref=education&oref=slogin