Great Article

September 29, 2008 at 3:24 pm | In Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

A fantastic Onion article

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/report_60_million_people_youd

Really Socialist or kinda Socialist. Pick one.

September 29, 2008 at 7:07 am | In Group 8 | 6 Comments
Tags:

The subject that has completely dominated the headlines this past week has undoubtedly been congress’s $700 billion bailout plan. The measure will allow the government to buy defaulted mortgages and other distressed housing-related assets, many of them held by Wall Street banks, in an effort to keep the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression from spreading throughout the entire economy. So what’s the big deal? Who can, with any serious contemplation of the implications of inaction, oppose congress’s plan? Yes, it might be an unpleasant fact that the taxpayers of America are being forced to pay for the mistakes of those Wall Street banks, but it is just that: a fact. Simply waiting around for the crisis to right itself is not a viable option. I mean, Ron Paul strongly opposes the deal, but he also opposes the Federal Reserve, the War on Drugs, No Child Left Behind, and gun regulation; draw your own conclusions.

So basically, since the bailout is inevitable anyway, it all comes down to the question of how involved we want our government to be. On this issue, would you like the United States of America to be really socialist, or just kind of socialist? Personally, I prefer the latter, but the Democrats who hold the majority in congress seem to disagree with me. The newest draft of the deal gives the government in general more control over the entire situation, while only allowing the white house to spend half of the funds without further petitions to congress.

Does it seem like congress is on a power trip? Yes. Do we prefer control of our money to be in the hands of a power hungry congressmen rather than in those of a power hungry Treasury Secretary? Most Certainly. Ideally, neither would be necessary, but in light of today’s economic crises, it is untenable to argue that a solution is unnecessary.

I Thought We Practiced Capitalism

September 29, 2008 at 7:06 am | In Group 6 | 1 Comment

One aspect of the government bail out that has bothered me is that government intervention into the economy defeats the foundation of capitalism.  Since the end of World War II the United States has been one of if not the most prosperous nations on earth, largely because of our economic strength.  This strength was based mostly on our adherence to the basic framework of capitalism.  Obviously we do not have a economy that is entirely free from government intervention, it is important to have organizations like the SEC to make sure the business’s are being honest and abiding by the rules of the system.  At the same time our economy is freer from government intervention than almost any other economy on earth.  So why is the government interfering now?  If the theory of capitalism states that the market will correct itself to reach equilibrium why are we now interfering?  I understand the implications of no government intervention; people will default on their mortgages everywhere.  At the same time in a capitalist economy these companies were doomed to fail because the market deemed that they needed to.
For the market to recover all this bad debt needs to be flushed out of the market.  Letting these companies fail is the easiest way to do that.  It also goes beyond the economic complications of a bailout.  What message does a bail out send to investors?  That the government will always be there with taxpayer money to bail them out?  How do you determine who to lend money too?  Now if everything goes according to plan this could be a fantastic investment for tax payers as they could easily double or triple their money.  But what if things don’t go according to plan and all we are doing is stalling an inevitable market collapse?  The market will always attempt to take itself back to equilibrium regardless of how much we try to stop it.

What? Really?

September 29, 2008 at 7:06 am | In Group 3, Source: Blogs, US President | Leave a Comment

The recent financial troubles have been the focus of many news organizations this past week and the plan to bail out Wall Street with 700 billion dollars has sparked much debate over how our economy should be handled.  The politicians all seem to have arguments for and against this plan, and what they would like to add or get rid of to make it better.  Sen. McCain suspended his campaign and returned to Washington in an attempt to get a bill passed and Sen. Obama returned to Washington as well to meet with Congressional leaders and President Buswh to further that same bill.  This bill is definitely the issue of the week, and everyone involved in the presidential race is picking a side and defending their position…well, almost everyone.  Take a look at this.

This is what’s wrong with politics today.  We vote based on personality and how well one candidate attacks the other and how well they can excite supporters with their emotions and we ignore the actual issues.  Apparently when Sen. McCain picked Sarah Palin to be hs Vice Presidential nominee, he didn’t consider how well she understood the issues important to the voters in this election.  Another showing like this in Thursday’s Vice Presidential debate and Palin may lose John McCain this election.  On a scale as large as the debate, when the country is focused more on her than the economic crisis itself, an answer such as this better scare off voters, and if it doesn’t, that really scares me that our country has judgment that is that poor.  There’s no excuse for not being up to date on the nation’s problems and plans to fix them.  As shown by all the hysteria created because of this mess (highlighted above), this is clearly a huge issue that everyone in this country needs to be familiar with.  I would expect any citizen to know more about this issue than what is said here.  If you are trying to become one of the most powerful people in the country, you are going to have to deal with a lot more than just some reporters asking difficult questions.  Jack Cafferty puts it best: “If John McCain wins the election, that woman is one 72-year old’s heartbeat away from being President of the United States, and if that doesn’t scare the hell out of you, it should.”

Empty Pockets and Promises

September 29, 2008 at 7:05 am | In Group 1, Source: TV, US President | Leave a Comment

As the nation gears up to fork over $700 billion to rescue our nation’s financial system, Americans once again find themselves in a state of utter deja vu.

Five years ago, the Bush administration asked for faith in a cause to fight global terrorism with regards to Iraq- a country who arguably did not pose an immediate threat to U.S. safety and security. Give us your support, they said- give us your privacy, your dollars, your confidence, your trust. Assuring Americans of absolute victory and resolve, the federal government knowingly submitted the country to an economic, social, and political free fall.

And it seems, yet again, Bush’s government and presidency has screwed up. If it was somehow possible, mistakes and literal ignorance towards the market and its well being are only now becoming public to most Americans. The Texas cowboy, who has recently flown under the radar thanks to Obama and McCain’s campaigns, approached the nation last week with another grave and foreboding message. The economy is shattered, broken. And only through the means of a bailout can the nation’s economy be saved. Oh, and by the way, it must be done immediately.

Hey George, thanks for the heads-up- right before you intend to make the decision for us. Just as the American people had only limited time and knowledge to pledge our allegiance to the Iraqi war, we are left to respond to looming deadlines before initial and ultimate market chaos ensues.

While Congress, Washington leaders, and Henry Paulson scramble for consensus, citizens find themselves out on a limb. Should the American people just follow along with the Fed’s plan to throw hard earned tax dollars into a huge pot and call it a day? Should we trust Washington to possess the sense and judgment to get us out of this mess? Are there really no other options on the table which don’t mirror the government’s empty promises of 2003?

While Bush can only remain in office until January 20, he has shown just enough leadership and control to assure a few more presidential-sized mistakes and failures. It is the responsibility of all Americans to closely monitor bailout proposals and plans. Obviously, questions facing the nation can only be answered if the initiative is taken. The public must avoid simple solutions to the financial crisis if these solutions would inevitably only produce empty pockets and promises.

Wall Street’s Lifeguard

September 29, 2008 at 7:04 am | In Group 4 | Leave a Comment

The recent issue concerning the utter failure of Wall Street and insurers such as AIG brings to light one of the fundamental differences of the two main political parties. The Republican party’s platform focuses on a freer market with little governmental control or oversight. This borderline laissez-faire approach has proven its worth throughout history as economies dictated by supply and demand work well. The Democratic party promotes higher taxes on businesses and the wealthy, more regulation and oversight, and greater involvement in general. And currently, with the most magnificent demise of Wall Street since the Great Depression, the philosophy is being put on hold.

The 700 billion dollar plan put forth by Paulson and modified by the House of Representatives involves the creating of TARP. The aptly named Troubled Asset Relief Program would allow the federal government to buy the poisonous assets of companies in a last-ditch attempt at freeing up credit markets to allow consumers to get loans to pay for their houses, cars, etc. This measure is supported by the Bush administration. In effect, the taxpayers would have to pay for the failures of institutions which were striving under the deregulated market promoted by Republican presidents (and to some extent Clinton) since the 1980s. It’s ironic that the average joe will now pay for the mistakes of some of the wealthiest men in the world.

This legislation should be passed because without something like this many Americans will not be able to make their normal purchases (something already being impeded by foreclosures, a tight credit market, and gas prices) and the economy will become worse and worse. Sure, 700 billion dollars is an enormous sum and it comes to about $2,333 dollars per person. However, due to the tax brackets, most of this will be paid for by high earners (thankfully, for people living on minimum wage could never afford to lose this much of their income). In my AP Macroeconomics class with talked about an analysis that came to the conclusion that if relief programs were not instated during the Great Depression, along with WWII, the Depression could have lasted indefinitely. The free market is perhaps invincible, but few among us would argue to wait it out for 20 years. Thus the importance of this package is paramount; even the ultra-free market Economist magazine approves of the plan, describing the deadly consequences if more firms are allowed to go under. Stricter regulation MUST occur in the aftermath to prevent the same complacency and corruption that we are dealing with now. More oversight is required to ensure companies are actually doing what they are supposed to do. After all, if the government saves these companies from their self-inflicted fate, it cannot expect to be free of governmental control and oversight.

Illegal Immigration in the Senate Race

September 29, 2008 at 7:03 am | In Group 5, Source: Newspapers, U.S. Senate | 2 Comments

A recent article published in the Guilford College newspaper discussed one of the most important issues in the upcoming Senate election: illegal immigration. With North Carolina being one of the top five states for population growth due to immigrants, it is obviously a very decisive topic.

Kay Hagan proposes to attack illegal immigration at its roots by boosting border-control strength, strictly enforcing and revamping laws that punish employees and businesses that knowingly provide jobs to illegal immigrants, and “eliminating the shadow economy that drives down wages and working conditions.”

Elizabeth Dole also wants to bring down the hammer on illegal immigration. She plans to continue using the North Carolina Sheriff’s Departments and the 287(g) program to help “identify and deport those living in the United States illegally.” Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides “the legal authority for state and local law enforcement to investigate, detain, and arrest aliens on civil and criminal grounds.” Within the first month of the program’s inception, 301 of 321 inmates that were brought before the 287(g) squad of detention officers were held for possible deportation out of the United States.

So essentially, under this program, if a person tries to change lanes on the highway and doesn’t use his turn signal and even remotely looks “illegal,” a cop has the right to pull them over for questioning and somewhere down the road, possibly deport them. This program will only lead to racial profiling and angry minority groups. As Jeremy McKinney, an immigration lawyer put it: “What they don’t understand is they think you can deport your way out of the situation.”

Not only is the 287(g) allowing for racial stereotyping and almost making it illegal for immigrants to even drive, but it is costing the local governments a lot of money. What was originally supposed to be a federally funded project, the 287(g) has turned into a locally funded fiasco that is costing more money than it’s worth. Combining poorly trained officers that do not know the complex immigration laws and the racial profiling that has gone on for centuries adds up to what the 287(g) program is now: one big mess.

To get to the point, should we, as the people, be in support of fighting immigration from its roots at the border and having a realistic long-term plan, or should we keep digging this rut that we are in by continuing to try and deport every person with a parking ticket on their record that has that “illegal” look to them? Do we want the practical solution that takes a little bit of hard work, or do we want to take the easy way out and deport everyone that looks like they don’t belong?

Was the Presidential Debate a toss up?

September 29, 2008 at 7:02 am | In Group 1, Source: TV, US President | Leave a Comment
Tags:

After the first presidential debate, everyone is wondering, who can be declared the winner? The two opponents fluctuated their views in a formal deliberation that seemed pretty heated at times throughout the night. Both candidates appeared to hold their own ground; however, when asked which candidate comes out on top, how does the voter base their decision? After a CNN poll was released on Saturday, 51% said that Obama “did better” while 38% said that McCain “did better”. However, the commentators reported a slight bias toward Democratic voters. McCain needed a clear victory to bring out a lead over Barack Obama after the debate. He had to take full advantage of his foreign policy expertise and use it against his opponent who has had little experience in that field. If you are a right-wing conservative, you probably feel that after the debate, McCain had a clear victory and controlled the arguments. However, if you are a liberal or a moderate, you may have felt an air of calmness that allowed you to connect more with Obama in the first Presidential debate.

So, how exactly do you decide who won if you are a voter with more moderate views? So many people tune in to the local news channels to find out who had a stronger argument in the debate. It seems that everyone’s own personal bias plays into whom his or her winner will be. Everyone wants to pull for a winner, and no one wants to admit failure in his or her chosen candidate. So, once you analyze the debate, what main points do you find?

The famous quotes of the night were repeated over and over again as they standout in the audience’s head. Obama repeatedly responded to McCain with, “John is right” nearly nine times according to Fox News. McCain, on the other hand, took a more negative line and reinforced the phrase, “You don’t understand,” trying to demote Obama’s experience in the eyes of the American people. On both earmark reforms and the Iraq war, the candidate’s sparred over the cause and correct remedy on the issues at stake. Through the course of the debate, the candidates discussed government spending, bailout proposal, terrorist attacks, and relations with Russia, Iran, and Iraq.

(http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/26/debate.friday/index.html#cnnSTCVideo on earmark reforms)

(http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/26/debate.friday/index.html#cnnSTCVideo on the Iraq war)

With only thirty-eight days until the presidential election, the candidates are struggling to get their issues heard while drawing in more and more independents. Right after the debate, Obama-Biden campaign manager called it a success to the Obama campaign. He said, “This was a clear victory for Barack Obama on John McCain’s home turf. Senator McCain offered nothing but more of the same failed Bush policies, and Barack Obama made a forceful case for change in our economy and our foreign policy.” At the same time, Republican campaign officials reported, “there was one man who was presidential tonight; that man was John McCain…There was a leadership gap, a judgment gap, and a boldness gap on display tonight, a fact Barack Obama acknowledged when he said John McCain was right at least five times.”

In terms of appearance and demeanor, many voters seem a bit unhappy at the presidential candidate’s performance. Unlike Obama, McCain failed to respect his opponent by not giving Obama his full attention whenever he was talking, while Obama repeatedly referred to his colleague as ‘John’ instead of Senator McCain. McCain sarcastically chuckled at Obama while Obama smirked in reference to many of McCain’s responses. As in nearly all debates, both candidates successfully cut one another off to get a point across and at times talked over one another. Will anyone hold this against either candidate? Probably not. However, voters do want a candidate that they can relate to, yet can make a clear stance eloquently and quickly. They do not like to hear a five-minute answer that they cannot relate to as both candidates have been charged with doing in the past.

Going into the election, many feared how Obama would hold up to McCain’s experience and intellectual expertise in foreign affairs. However, it was extremely clear last night that Obama held his own ground. He defended his policies and refused to let McCain take a step ahead at any moment. McCain definitely had more to lose going into the debate; therefore, after Obama held his own next to the McCain’s experience, the public reacted in favor of Obama. Does this necessarily constitute that he ‘won’ just because he stood his ground?

Obama seemed to discuss the idea of change all night, but when push came to shove, he failed to give his own remedy for the solution. Yes, the American people want and desperately need change; however, Obama did not take advantage of his opportunity to inform the public of his actual proposals. Obama stated the obvious the entire night rather than taking a clear stance with a clear goal to fix the financial crisis, the Iraq war, and so on. McCain on the other hand, was living in the past the entire night. He repeatedly referred to past experiences of his military service and Washington knowledge in politics. Maybe this was part of his strategy, but the American’s want change, they did not want to be reminded of the banal everyday Washington that they are used to seeing. Obviously, as no one is perfect, both candidates made mistakes, while they both seemingly made advances in the eyes of liberals and conservatives. However, they need to appeal to the moderate voters. Those who are watching these debates ultimately determine whom they will vote for in November.

So, the first day after the debate, the public seems to place Obama with a slight lead over McCain. Who knows if this gap will only get bigger or swap over the next week. Many American’s are waiting anxiously for the vice presidential debates to take place this week to get a clear stance for which candidate is in the lead. It all comes down to personal preference. After last night’s performance, independent voters may be able to relate better to Obama’s calm composure and soothing dialogue. However, they may be feeling more comfortable with McCain’s experience and clever wit. The debates only sway the independents. As they are the most important group of voters at this point, they will select our next President.

Energy is the Way

September 29, 2008 at 7:01 am | In Group 3, Source: Blogs, US President | Leave a Comment
Tags:

Let’s talk the environment and energy. Recently, our two candidates for president have stressed issues such as the Iraq War and the state of our economy. While we want to stress that these issues are incredibly important to the future of the United States, energy can and will impact both of these issues in big ways. Does it not scare you to think that gas stations in the south are STILL bone dry because Hurricane Ike struck Texas many days ago? In order for our nation to be safer and cleaner we must have energy that is clean and effective for the millions who live in this country.

We want to draw your attention, now to the very conservative energy campaign of Barack Obama which will essentially be the most successful plan for the future of the country. Consistently Obama remarks that we need to change and with his energy plans he could successfully bring a new future to the United States. It is vital for the next president of our country to break the dependence that we have on foreign energy sources in the Middle East and South America. Obama promises to do this by increasing fuel economy standards and moving green business to the center of American business. By establishing this country’s energy concern as one of our main focuses in American business, Obama will not only pull many Americans out of unemployment but will improve conditions in our nation. Creating subsidies for alternative energy will allow cleaner energy to be the future for the United States of America.

On this note, we turn to why John McCain’s energy solution may be appealing but just isn’t right for United States. McCain may be more realistic but that doesn’t mean his plan is foolproof. John McCain promises to look for renewable energy resources in order to better the state of country’s energy program. However, he has missed the vote for these subsidies for renewable resources EIGHT times. Yes, that is correct. The Senate Bill that would essentially make cleaner energy more accessible and cheaper has been rejected by McCain when he could have been the deciding vote in as many as two occasions. We cannot continue to drill holes in Alaska and pray that we never run out of oil. This nation cannot wait for the oil that will take a very long time to come out of the reserves under the presidency of McCain.

It will be so much more effective if we turn to the option of subsidies for renewable energy. Under the program of Obama, this country is offered a turn to green business. We are offered an opportunity to make our energy sources cleaner and effective and we say we should take this opportunity full on.

http://ragingred.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/mccain-blatantly-lying-about-his-record-on-renewable-energy/

Bailout Plan is a Necessary Evil

September 29, 2008 at 7:00 am | In Group 7, Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Tags: , ,

As banks fall like dominoes, there is no doubt that the era of “irrational exuberance,” as Alan Greenspan put it, has come back to haunt us. However, the question that American lawmakers faced this week was the question of how to fix financial markets in the short term. As John McCain put it, “the fundamentals of the American economy are strong.” Eventually, almost everyone agrees, the American economy could recover from a blow such that has been dealt in the past few weeks. The question is, how much pain are we willing to go through before we get there?

The sweeping legislation proposed by the President, and largely accepted by Congress this week, allows Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson $250 Billion for immediate use to soothe the roiling financial markets, with the option for up to $450 Billion more. The bailout plan essentially allows the government to buy mortgage-backed securities from any company that wants to sell them, thus exempting these companies from the ramifications of the mortgages that they themselves created.

Americans, we think, are not fully aware of the possible magnitude of the subprime mortgage crisis. The entire economy could be rocked without a bailout plan of this magnitude. We firmly believe that a violent transition such that could occur without a bailout plan of this magnitude would be devastating to both American’s faith in the economy and their faith in government. The size of the problem calls for an equally large solution. The bailout plan, as repulsive as it is, might be the only way to ease the market back into standard, respectable credit practices.

This money can’t come without strings, though; the bill calls for far greater regulation and oversight of financial markets. The predatory lending and subprime mortgages that are a large part of the current financial crisis would be regulated by two oversight boards, and all authority to utilize the funds outlined in this bill will expire on Dec. 31, 2009, unless congress approves an extension. In addition, the bailout plan would limit executive pay and eliminate the ‘golden parachutes’ that may have significantly contributed to the excesses in lending that instigated the crisis.

Let’s not forget that the government could stand to make a generous profit off the bailouts. If, and this is a big IF, the markets improve, the purchase of mortgage-backed securities could result in a net financial gain for the government. In addition to these increases, the bill calls for the government to take a stake in some of the corporations from which it buys these securities. This measure would both help to curb the unsafe lending practices that got us into this mess, and allow the American taxpayer to share in the almost gratuitous profits that these companies, and their executives in particular, enjoyed during the boom years.

The American economy is in a boatload of trouble. The debate over whether to throw the sinking financial institutions a life raft, is, to us, important but ultimately irrelevant. We don’t see any other option than to buy up the mortgage-backed securities and hope for the best. The plan also seems to have significant upside. In addition to the possibility of making money, the government could also gain some much-needed trust from its citizens. For too long, the people of this country have viewed the government as nothing more than an apparatus to collect taxes & pave roads. This is a chance for the government to show its people that it can do more; that it can effectively and safely guide the country out of a sinkhole created, in large part, by the excesses of pure capitalism.

This is an important time, and the overriding message from the people is clear:

Government, don’t screw this up.

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.