At the outset of this blog project, I was certain that I would maintain my concrete beliefs about Obama and his economic policies all the way through. I felt strongly that Obama and his administration had made some poor decisions with the country’s money and had done little to help the economy, if not making matters worse. Now that I’m nearly finished researching, however, I’ve noticed just how narrow-minded I was. Although I still stand by some of my original ideologies, I feel now that my opinion has evolved away from its narrow mindedness and has become more “fair” – so to speak. I think its safe to claim that I was quite ignorant about the topic at the time in which I undertook it, maybe even a little biased; which is part of the reason that I wanted to research more about it. I just didn’t expect my opinion to change as much as it did. I thought the problem was cut-and-dry. I believed that there was an easy solution to the economy being fixed but man was I wrong. As I began to research more and more, I started to notice that the situation was much more complex than I had previously thought and began to think that Obama’s economic strategies weren’t as bad as they seemed. Actually, some of them helped and are still helping the economy today! I discovered that Obama’s plans had actually created an increase in the welfare of some economic markets. I discovered that consumer spending has been increasing for five straight months now – a sign that the economy is on the verge of pulling out of the recession. Findings such as these really made me contemplate my stance on the topic. I learned so much from my research about things that I never would have known unless I made this blog. I believe that’s the main portion of my growth as a thinker: How the advancement in the level of my knowledge through all of my research allowed me to step away from my one-sided mindset and step into an open and accepting one. Although I still believe in small government, big business economic policy, I agree with some of Obama’s policies that I previously would’ve shrugged off and then laughed at. I have no doubt in my mind that this project will have an impact on the way I position myself towards economic policies for the rest of my life.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Class Links Post
I have been following this blog that discusses the controversy on the legalization of Marijuana. I really enjoyed keeping up with this blog for a few different reasons. It is very interesting and extremely informative. And Secondly, it is a funny blog at times and gives you the chance to think about less “formal” problems our country is having.
This blog covers the issue stemming from the possible construction of a mosque near Ground Zero. I followed this blog from day one. It’s a very interesting topic, particularly because every American has an opinion regarding what should be done. If you are up to having your beliefs challenged while willing to see the sides of others, then this blog is gold.
This blog is about the controversy with agents in the NCAA. I personally am a HUGE sports fan so I was on this blog like a duck on a June bug. This blog has great information and is very insightful to the problem that it correlates to. I enjoyed keeping up with this blog so much that I’m actually going to try and find another sports-related blog to follow, fancy that?
All of these blogs are very unique and interesting in their own way. So, I urge you to click the link and read up because I actually developed some new beliefs from interacting with some other people's viewpoints in these three blogs.
Links Post
Offers good insight as to what should/could be done to try and fix the economy. The author of the article proposes that we could reduce the budget deficit by cutting welfare and foreign aid.
Offers logical ideas as to what may happen if the problem with our struggling economy goes unsolved.
A great site that back up the “Obamanomics” theory and supports its ideologies by comparing his policies with the successes of Clinton and other noteworthy people.
This is a very informative website whose stance is primarily against Obama and his economics policies. The website includes many reasons for disagreeing with the Obama Administration, some of which include Obama’s confrontation of only the short run and not the long run.
This website offers a rebuttal for all the criticism that Obama is taking. It says that even though the polls are against Obama’s policies, the markets are actually doing better.
This is just an informative website that goes over Obama’s plans to pull us out of our recession.
This source is a review of what Obama and his administration have done in the past two years with the economy. This is a neutral site that offers information from an unbiased viewpoint.
This website offers a new perspective to the debate over Obamanomics. It is against his policies and claims that he is taking over the system in an attempt to destroy capitalism.
This is an article off the Wall Street Journal that explains why Obamanomics is failing. The article hits many points including Medicaid and even the Stimulus Bill.
Mostly an Anti-Obama website. This one claims that the economy wont get better while Obama is bashing President push and Republican leader John Boehner and blaming them for our problem.
Another Anti-Obama website that lists Obamanomics “Top-10” failures. It covers things from the national debt to the stimulus bill.
This link is about Lawrence Summers, the Obama’s chief economic advisor, decision to leave his position in the President’s cabinet. He claims to be very happy with Obama’s policies and commends them on many levels. This is a Pro-Obama site that was extremely useful to me.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
What could happen (Implications post)
The economy is in bad shape and even Obama has admitted that fixing it should be a top priority. I recently read a great article as to what will happen if we don’t fix our economy as soon as possible. The primary belief is that unemployment will remain very high. The problem of the bad economy can be solved, but the decisions that must be made in order to solve these problems are difficult ones. Many economists don’t fear of another deep recession like the one that we are currently battling out of, but many think that the unemployment rate will remain high until the economy bounces back. These economists are cutting their estimates for growth in GDP. Slower growth means unemployment could remain in the high single digits (or possibly in the double-digits) for years to come and if you are without a job, it makes it very hard to spend money or even pay your bills.
I think that if we do nothing to work this problem out, that a few different things might happen. Firstly, I believe that if this goes unsolved, there could be mass amounts of protest, objection, and unrest towards the American government – something we cannot afford. The unemployment rate is high, and will remain high for a while; maybe until 2014. This alone is reason enough to work even harder to get this fixed. Secondly, despite what some economists might say, the economy might plunge into a “double-dip” recession. Although it is not a certainty, there is still a possibility that such an occurrence might happen. This would be incredibly destructive for the American Government. Unrest would rise, and we might even lose our place as the beacon in the world for hope and prosperity. Even worse, our country may end up bankrupt in as few as twenty years if our economy can’t be turned around. Although highly unlikely, it is still a vague possibility. Budget deficits would eventually become too great for us to pay off and in worse case scenario, most American citizens would not even be able to pay the interest on the American debts unemployment would remain high. In essence, it could be the end of the “American Dream”.
A step back; Reaganomics in Depth
I went back and looked at my theory post and my analysis post and I realized that I might have come across a little biased. I have been, for the most part, leaning so much towards one side that I have almost neglected the other viewpoints. I would like to take some time to take a step back and look at Reaganomics in a little more depth, since I am comparing and contrasting them to Obamanomics so much.
The Reaganomics theory was based upon the belief that government interference stumped the growth of companies, and because this is true these companies could not fully reinvest in the economy. In my analysis post I made a point that Obamanomics and Reaganomics had little in common. This may be true in some aspects so I was not totally wrong, however, they do indeed have many similarities. For example, Obama is actually following the concepts of tax cuts. In fact he has actually provided tax cuts to 95% of American sin an attempt to get the economy going again. Although Reaganomics saw corporate tax cuts and personal income taxes to certain wealth classes, Reaganomics did have some bad aspects. Despite all the tax cuts Reagan saw through, the lower income families and individuals saw taxes rise, suggesting that the “little guys” were not benefiting from government programs like everyone else. It left the blue collar Americans stuck on the rocks.
I honestly am surprised about the similarities between Obamanomics and Reaganomics and am shocked that I overlooked them earlier. Perhaps Obamanomics is not quite as bad as it seems. The markets are in-fact showing improvement and the unemployment rate has ceased (at least for the time being) to climb.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Mental Health Break
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_PS9cbm5v2uw/TGBUPcHkX2I/AAAAAAAAAXI/7jv9ToyR-Jk/s1600/Obamanomics.jpg
First glance at this political cartoon implies a negative connotation. However, I find that it argues for both sides. It shows the economy wrecked and Obama in the drivers seat, but it doesn't say who was driving when the economy crashed. I like to think that This cartoon argues for both sides. Firstly that we do need to move forward because the economy needs it (its in ruins) and Obama will lead us there. On the other side you can view it as Obama being the sole culprit. Very interesting cartoon in my eyes!
First glance at this political cartoon implies a negative connotation. However, I find that it argues for both sides. It shows the economy wrecked and Obama in the drivers seat, but it doesn't say who was driving when the economy crashed. I like to think that This cartoon argues for both sides. Firstly that we do need to move forward because the economy needs it (its in ruins) and Obama will lead us there. On the other side you can view it as Obama being the sole culprit. Very interesting cartoon in my eyes!
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Watch this video.
This video does a really great job contrasting between Obamanomics and Reaganomics. Just kind of reiterates my point that Obamanomics is, when compared to more successful methods, seems to be less successful.
The Possibilities are Endless... (theory post)
The debate over Obamanomics has been polarized because of the effects they have had on the economy over the past 2 years. Generally speaking, there or those who believe Obama and his advisors are doing a good job in this way, and then there are those who hate Obama’s economic policies because. In order to solve the problem and end the “polarized sides”, people need to agree on a few things. One: that Obama is working hard and in some aspects helped the economy. Two: that the majority of the money we have spent has been spent carelessly and did not take into account past trends and long run results. The facts are overwhelmingly favored towards one side – the Anti-Obama side. For a resolution, I propose that we disregard all economic policies and strategies and start from scratch – working together. Conservative and Liberal economic policies are just about as opposite from each other as you can get. In order to make a policy that works, everyone needs to help out and everyone needs to be open to new theories and ideas. I believe a good start would be to incorporate a theory of “Trickle-down-economics” while keeping Obama’s current policies for increased government spending. These two aspects (taken from both arguments) have had benefits on our economy in the past, as well as in the present recession. I think that if we combine the two "working" aspects from each side of the argument regarding economic policies that it will be much more effective than sticking with just one strict plan.
Friday, October 15, 2010
The stimulus Bill
Obama's Stimulus bill has been, for the most part, viewed as a good thing or a bad thing. There are hardly any people who have a viewpoint in-between. Probably due to the drastic measures that the stimulus bill carried out.
The stimulus bill, officially passed in February of 2009, was the largest expanse of government spending the world has ever seen. The WORLD!? Ok, it's one thing to spend so much money that it's a "country record", but it's a totally different thing when you start setting global records. Overall, the bill has cost us somewhere in the high $800 billions. Not only that, but all of this spending has done very little to stimulate the economy. The unemployment rate is still inching towards the double-digits, and our national debt is increasing by the day.
I believe this is a problem with the idea that government wants to "regulate the economy". In the past, economic efforts of the government to regulate the economy by taking money from the wealthy and giving it to the unemployed has had almost no effect - just look at the FDR time period. He tried to do the same thing to "jumpstart" the economy by throwing around billions of taxpayer's dollars, and all it did was make things worse. So why Obama and his administration decided we should give it another go around is beyond me.
This article says that even the Obama administration admits that it "guessed wrong" on the stimulus package. Originally designed to get Americans back to work by saving/creating 3 million jobs, now they are having to settle with only 600,000 jobs (about 1/5 of their original goal). The stimulus bill has proven to be nothing more than wasteful spending. Yes, it provided short term relief - that kind of money should. But it neglected the long term economy to make things look better at that point in time.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Analysis Post
The American economy has been in ruins for a while now. Since late 2007 to be exact. In that time we have seen thousands of American citizens lose their jobs and many more who are looking for work but it’s just not available. We have seen the passage of numerous, very expensive bills and stimulus plans that have attempted to get the country back on its feet. We have seen debate after debate over what should actually be done to pull our economy out of this recession and there still is no concrete solution. Obama and his administration are working tirelessly, trying to find a way to reignite our country’s economy. They have offered many ideas and strategies regarding ways in which they can get the country back on its feet. Some of the more notable ones include the new health care reform and the Stimulus bill that was passed. Despite the efforts of Obama and his administration over the past 18 months, our economy just hasn’t seemed to pull out of the economy yet. He and his colleagues are under intense scrutiny from some people, and praise from others, thus creating many different stances and beliefs on the policies. Some people see an upward trend in the markets that signal economic recovery while others believe that the Obama economic plan is failing miserably, just making things worse. Public discourse has had many fluctuations since Obama and his team began making changes. Many people who agreed with him originally have changed their opinions and visa versa. The economic policies that Obama is using are complex and prove to be a highly debatable topic around the country today.
The way I see it, there are many facets that contribute to this argument. Economically, Obama and his administration have made many decisions and passed numerous laws, some with greater impact than others, that have all played a role in developing the discourse that revolves around this topic. Such contributors include (but are not limited to) the stimulus bill, the health care reform, public opinion, and even the war in Iraq. These few things are only grazing the surface of what has come to be known as “Obamanomics”. The overall aim of Obama’s economic agenda is to create new jobs, find an immediate response to our financial crisis and even help out in the housing market.
“Obamanomics” is the title for the economic policies enforced by Obama and his advisors. Obamanomics pursues lower tax rates for companies that meet specific requirements, as well as calling for increased taxes for higher-income families along with increased fiscal input towards “education, healthcare and the sciences.” There are many different stances regarding Obamanomics. However, I believe the two most common (Anti-Obama and Pro-Obama) coincide with political party stance – Republicans and Democrats. Republicans tend to favor “Reaganomics” more than anything else - an economic policy that promotes saving, investment, entrepreneurship and work by cutting taxes and strict control over government spending. Democrats tend to side with a Keynesian economic policy more than anything else, which is what Obama is doing. Keynesian economic policy follows the principle that government intervention in the economy is the best way to circulate money. In the 1980’s the economy was actually worse off than it is today. Yet, President Reagan’s economic policies lead to a complete revival from the recession and in only two years time. The Obama administration's economic policies, however, do not include any of the Reagan components that did so well for our economy. Actually, they have quite the opposite. The stimulus plan is the most expansive increase in government spending in history (Keynesian aspect). Anti-Obama citizens like to contrast Obamanomics with Reaganomics to demonstrate the faults that Obama’s economic policies have. This is probably because Reagonomics worked magnificently in the 80’s to jump-start the American economy, and today Obamanomics are, according to public opinion polls and numbers, failing.
Although Obama and his administration are doing all they can to save our economy (or at least it seems that way), I just don’t it getting any better. Many people across the nation are deeply upset with Obama’s economic mindset and do not mind voicing their opinions. We can infer these people to be “Anti-Obama”. For example, Ivan G. Seidenberg, Chief Executive of Verizon Communications, claims that Democratic leadership in the White House (and in other key positions in the government) is hampering economic growth by pursuing tax-cuts and dumb policy changes that "harm our ability . . . to grow private-sector jobs in the U.S." His statements seem to reflect America’s growing “discontent” with Obama and his economic policies. Similarly to Seidenberg, Newt Gingrich (a Republican economist) believes that Obamanomics is killing jobs rather than creating them. His logic is that “modern left-wing policies” frighten small businesses, independent producers, entrepreneurs, and investors – thus destroying potential jobs. The difficulty of finding a job, along with high anxiety caused from the “uncertain” economy is leading to deep public unrest.
According to recent survey reports, the public is beginning to believe that Obama’s policies are hurting the economy. The proportion of people who think that Obama’s economic policies have made economic conditions worse has almost doubled from 16% in 2009, to 29% in 2010. Only 35% of Republicans at the outset of Obama’s presidency believed that his economic policies were making things worse. That number has risen to 58% in just two years. Even Democrats are starting to sway in their opinions. In just one year’s time, there was an “eight-point increase in the percentage saying Obama’s policies have had a negative effect.” A new Rasmussen report telephone survey of 2500 Americans boasted similar results. The survey showed that 41% of Adults are at least a little confident in the economic advisors of the president, however 57% aren’t. Also, 65% of adults who don’t classify themselves under either of the dominant political parties said they were doubtful of these men. Leaving only a mere 35% who still support him. Even another poll (Public questioning econ policies) shows that despite Obama still having a high popularity rate, the public is beginning to question his policies. Obama and his administration are definitely losing support for their economic endeavors, and in my opinion, they’re losing it fast.
There are many proposed reasons as to why Obamanomics may have failed. And most of these “theories” have (for the most part) the same points. The first common point I came across was the fact that the unemployment rate is still incredibly high. This graph was taken directly from a report published by Barak Obama himself in early 2009. He used it to convince people that his Stimulus bill would save and/or create over 3 million jobs. The red line (added by Liberty Works) shows the real unemployment rate after passage of the Stimulus bill. As is evident, the unemployment rate has risen higher than if were just not to do anything – reaching 10% at points. The second point that I found was quite common with “Anti-Obama” citizens was the notion that Obama and his administration only accounted for the short run and only “addressed the immediate cataclysm”. They solved the immediate problem, but did nothing to solve the trend line – job loss, inactivity of income, etc. All this did was waste stacks of taxpayer’s dollars and cause even more instability in the economy. Even Obama is calling for new stimulus measures. This in it-self is convincing proof that Obama and his team now realize that their earlier methods were ineffective at reviving the economy. Lastly, the theory of trickle-down bailouts is thought to be a reason why Obamanomics have failed. This video explains trickle-down bailouts and how they are, in theory, when you bail out banks or other big businesses and expect them to lend a “helping hand” to other people and credit would flow again. Sadly, Capitalism doesn’t work that way because it is not the most profitable option and that doesn’t involve lending to small businesses and people.
Then there are those who are extremely “Anti-Obama,” taking the meaning to a whole new level. In this article, Wayne Allen Root (an apparent hater of Obama and his policies) goes as far as to say that Obama is “Purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis, and social chaos- thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within.” He theorizes that Obama is attempting to turn our country into a “socialist/Marxist state” that has a majority population whose needs government for survival are exponential. He consistently claims that almost everything Obama and his administration have done is part of a plan to “Overwhelm the system”. Although I disagree with his drastic opinion that Obama is trying to change our country into a Marxist state, his viewpoint presents a side to the argument that cannot be ignored.
Moving forwards, I’d like to mention that numbers don’t lie… And right now the numbers show that a strong dislike for Obama is rapidly springing up around the country. Many people (both Republican and Democrat) are getting tired of Obama trying to blame the circumstance in which he entered office as the reason why we are still in a recession. Not too long ago, President Obama bashed Bush, claiming that he is the reason for all of our economic problems. Now I don’t know about you, but the fact that Obama cannot step and face the mess he and his policies created is astounding to me. I guess Obama must have overlooked the fact that Bush’s marginal tax cuts in 2003 created 8 million jobs and lowered the unemployment rate to 4.6%. The reason were still in a recession is not Bush, despite what Obama claims – even the numbers say it isn’t. The reason we are still in a recession is because Obama and his administration made mistakes with their policies and wasted billions of dollars.
Here’s an interesting fact: Did you know that President Obama will have actually spent more money on his stimulus bill than the cost of the whole Iraq war? It’s true. The cost of the stimulus bill, by 2019, will have cost our country $814 Billion dollars. This number is a shocking $100 Billion dollars more than the cost of the 6-year long War in Iraq, estimated to be around $709 Billion dollars. Obama passed his stimulus bill his first month in office and within its first two years, it has surpassed the cost of a war (half-way around the world) that has been raging on for 6 years!
Conversely, an opposite school-of-mind is from those who support Obama and his economic strategies (Pro-Obama). Primarily from the Democratic Party, these people view Obama’s economic policies as having a positive impact on the country’s economy. President Obama has been clear about what he wishes to do in battling the economic crisis. His guiding prospects include creating jobs, Keeping Americans in their homes, and bringing stability to the financial markets. His first priority, according to the page of the White House, is to get Americans working again. He signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which has been responsible for around 3 million jobs. These jobs have seemingly carved the path for a “new clean energy economy, a revitalized infrastructure and transportation system, and have helped transform health information technology.” In attempts to make his other two prospects a reality, Obama has signed many bills aimed at getting credit flowing again and helping Americans out in the housing market.
Despite the popular consensus, some numbers point out that the economy is actually improving. Although Obama’s job rating has hit rock bottom, the markets (according to his website) have at last made a turn for the better. For example, the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index is up from its recessionary low in March 2009 by about 74%. But, that’s not the only market that has seen growth. Corporate bonds have been doing better and better as the year progressed. Commodity prices have shot upwards. International currency markets have seen a drastic improvement and even housing prices have appeared to finally level out. Because his strategies have appeared to work (in some aspects), the Chinese Premier commended Obama for his efforts to stimulate the US economy. Another notable person, Lawrence Summers, defended the policies of the Obama Administration when he stated, “We were at the brink of catastrophe at the beginning of the year but we have walked some substantial distance back from the abyss… Substantial progress has been made in rescuing the economy from the risk of economic collapse that looked all too real 6 months ago.” Summers, who was actually Obama’s chief economic advisor, claims that even though the unemployment rate climbs closer and closer towards the double digits, that it does not mean that the stimulus plan is failing simply because the unemployment rate lags other indicators of economic recovery.
Obama and his administration have worked relentlessly to find a solution to the economic crisis we have been stuck in for almost three years now. Yet, I still feel that him and his advisors are following the wrong policies. I was astonished to find out that some of the markets have rebounded under his leadership and strategies, but the biggest problems still remain intact – the recession is still here, the unemployment rate is still growing, and public opinion is continuing to get worse and worse towards Obama and his methods. I will admit, I am less harsh towards Obama’s policies after reading everything I have read. None-the-less, until these problems are solved, or at the very least begin to get noticeably better, my thoughts regarding “Obamanomics” will remain unchanged: they simply aren’t working.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Obamanomics
Obamanomics has become a very common term for the policies that Obama and his administration are using. However, the viewpoints regarding Obamanomics are, for the most part, polar opposites. Many people believe that he is failing, others think that he is doing a good job. Based solely upon the facts, I tend to side with the belief that he isn't doing to great of a job of regulating the economy.
Yes, he is working tirelessly. And he actually might be doing the right thing in the humanitarian scope of things, but that approach to running the country doesn't seem to be working. Obamanomics (seemingly) has failed economically. There are a few different reasons of course. Firstly, Obama and his administration did not account for the "long-run" effects of their spending. For example, a part of their spending went to "temporary tax cuts". Economic theory predicts that temporary tax cuts, unless expected to last in the long run, have little effect on consumer spending. This is because consumers generally save their profits and pay down their debts with short-term tax cuts. Another reason Obamanomics has appeared to fail is the large sum of money that went to relieve state governments of their debts. Moving the debt from the state governments to the Federal government does very little to solve our problem. In-fact it might have made it worse. Even though people may have received a year of benefits, their gains are only temporary and must eventually be "balanced" out with the negative effect that the temporary shift of money has on the economy.
As I said, Obamanomics may be doing the right thing humanitarian wise - giving lower income people health insurance and passing out unemployment benefits. But Obama and his administrations main focus should be, at least right now, getting our country back to its former economic "powerhouse" stance in the world.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704629804575325233508651458.html
Yes, he is working tirelessly. And he actually might be doing the right thing in the humanitarian scope of things, but that approach to running the country doesn't seem to be working. Obamanomics (seemingly) has failed economically. There are a few different reasons of course. Firstly, Obama and his administration did not account for the "long-run" effects of their spending. For example, a part of their spending went to "temporary tax cuts". Economic theory predicts that temporary tax cuts, unless expected to last in the long run, have little effect on consumer spending. This is because consumers generally save their profits and pay down their debts with short-term tax cuts. Another reason Obamanomics has appeared to fail is the large sum of money that went to relieve state governments of their debts. Moving the debt from the state governments to the Federal government does very little to solve our problem. In-fact it might have made it worse. Even though people may have received a year of benefits, their gains are only temporary and must eventually be "balanced" out with the negative effect that the temporary shift of money has on the economy.
As I said, Obamanomics may be doing the right thing humanitarian wise - giving lower income people health insurance and passing out unemployment benefits. But Obama and his administrations main focus should be, at least right now, getting our country back to its former economic "powerhouse" stance in the world.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704629804575325233508651458.html
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Just one factor...
I believe that Obama and his administration are leading this country into the ground, economically speaking. I do not doubt Obama's (or anyone else's) intentions because I know that they are sincere and mean the best. And I'm certainly not sitting here and bashing Obama and his team for not working hard, because they were in-fact handed a huge mess when they took over. However, the economic reforms since they’ve been in power have made things worse.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, for starters, was supposed to reinvigorate an economy that was spiraling out of control in a recession. Sadly, it has done the opposite. It was primarily focused on health care, infrastructure, extended unemployment benefits, middle-class tax cuts, and many other categories. Their plan was to use 787 billion dollars, divided into different projects and categories, in an attempt to create or save many jobs. 3 to 4 million to be exact. Yet, since 2009 when the bill was passed the unemployment rate has steadily increased – at times reaching the 10% mark or even higher. Since its passage in 2009, much of this money has been wasted and nowhere near 3 to 4 million jobs have been saved.
I would propose a commonly found theory of “Trickle-down Economics.” In this theory, tax-cuts would be given to small business thus encouraging them to expand because of the cheap capital. Expansion of companies means more jobs. And all of this could be done with little government interference. I’m not pretending to know exactly how to pull this country out of the recession. All I’m truly certain of right now is that the methods right now are failing (economically) and we need to rethink our strategies.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Obama Administration and its Economic Policies
The United States over the past few years has been through peaks and troughs of well-being and happiness. The recession starting in December of 2007 is continuing still today, and the War on Terrorism is raging on - almost reaching the decade mark. People across the country are in dire poverty and millions of Americans are unemployed and living solely off of unemployment benefits. Our country is up to its ears in debt and the government only spends more and more every day on pointless things.
One might ask who is responsible for all of the events that have unfolded over the past 2 years, and as much as I would like to through a single person under the bus, it’s more than just one American that’s responsible. President Barack Obama was sworn into office January 20, 2009. Upon his arrival into the Oval Office, he brought with him his whole administration. His administration is made up of thousands of individuals in a variety of departments, his Presidential Cabinet and even the Executive Office of the President. All of these people are contributors to the growing economic problem today. Economically, Obama and his Administration are doing a poor job of regulating money and pulling our country out of the recession. Although Obama’s intentions may be good, I believe that his economic policies are not bringing us out of the recession, but leading the country deeper and deeper into the problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)