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