No matter how much it sucks to hear about the fighting and arguing in Congress and from regular folks about this stimulus package, I think it is not wrong at all that this bickering is occurring.
It is unfortunate these arguments are occurring at a time when the economy is really bad, but it is not wrong.
Many of the blogs on the stimulus package I’ve read talk about the politics going on with the bill. They discuss the partisanship angle of the disagreements between the Democrats and the Republicans. They talk about the differences in what the House and Senate voted to include in the bill. They even talk about the “winners and losers” who will come out as a result of this stimulus bill.
For example, bloggers on http://powerlineblog.com, say this is a bad bill and even with the recent rebound in the public’s support, support will drop if the public does not see results.
When the Senate’s version of the stimulus package came out without the billions of dollars for education funding that the House’s version had, bloggers wrote about that. Even funding towards scientific research at the National Institute of Health (NIH) was being questioned.
Overall, this stimulus package is simply too big to not argue about it. There is too much at stake to not question every detail that is going into this bill (no matter how much I dread hearing about another constituent calling in to voice his or her opinion at at my congresswoman’s office).
It would be wishful thinking to think that these things would not occur.
-Michelle Koyanagi
(I'm sorry this is late. I kept getting an error post when I tried posting it at home.)
Thursday, February 12, 2009
An Economic Stimulus Bill--for the good of the nation or just its decision makers?
Obama recently signed his first piece of legislature, a $789 billion economic stimulus bill that will hopefully spur economic recovery and instigate tax relief. The debate remains if it is enough to make a significant impact in the economy and whether it is worth it, as many Democrats claim that funding for education and health was cut out to gain three crucial votes from Republicans. However, many Republican legislatures are also not satisfied and are claiming that Democrats are simply making up for lost time in the White House in trying to give out too much money.
Skepticism is my initial reaction as to whether this bill will actually pull through for America. Neither party is satisfied with the bill. Both seem to be in a power struggle to get funding for only the sectors in which they see as an issue of interest. Are Democrats and Republican legislatures really looking out for the wellbeing of the country as a whole or are they just vying for the most influence in the bill’s policies? A New York Times article stated that to win Republican votes, Democrats were forced to trim down the amount considerably less than what is needed to boost the economy. I understand that bills require a certain number of Democrat and Republican votes to pass. However in this crisis we face, both parties need to put differences aside, come together, and act together for what is best for the nation.
By Layal Brown
Skepticism is my initial reaction as to whether this bill will actually pull through for America. Neither party is satisfied with the bill. Both seem to be in a power struggle to get funding for only the sectors in which they see as an issue of interest. Are Democrats and Republican legislatures really looking out for the wellbeing of the country as a whole or are they just vying for the most influence in the bill’s policies? A New York Times article stated that to win Republican votes, Democrats were forced to trim down the amount considerably less than what is needed to boost the economy. I understand that bills require a certain number of Democrat and Republican votes to pass. However in this crisis we face, both parties need to put differences aside, come together, and act together for what is best for the nation.
By Layal Brown
Banks & the Stimulus package
A significant portion of President Obama's proposed (and soon-to-be-voted-on) stimulus package concerns the nation's failing banks. Ideas for remedying the issue have included a government-sponsored "bad bank" to buy toxic assets and a demand for severely curtailed executive pay. Seeing as most of the ideas on how to fix this problem involve intensive government involvement, blogs on both sides had different things to harp on when covering the issue.
Politico, usually a more fact-based blog, applauded CitiGroup CEO Vikram Pandit's admission that the recent purchase of a corporate jet was in poor taste considering the country's economic climate. The post, however, deemed this was not nearly enough and that Wall Street "just doesn't get it." Although I agree that CEO salaries and expenditures are preposterously high, it's a bit of a tall order to ask an industry founded on money to suddenly give up distributing it to its top employees.
The Huffington Post surprised me, however. In a post by Columbia economics professor Jeffrey Sachs, the author advocates for the taxpayers, not the government, to liquidate bad assets. I expect such a liberally-minded site to be enthusiastic about big government taking responsibility for national crises, but this article calls for Washington to be the facilitator and not the prime actor in dealing with the problem.
Of course, conservative blog Town Hall found the proposal to use taxpayer money to bail out bands enraging. One post on the issue claimed that bailing out banks is "putting bank investors ahead of the taxpayer." Another worried that government bailout of the bands would "convert the world's greatest engine of free market prosperity into a socialistic leviathan."
The sheer cost of the stimulus plan is in itself terrifying, especially considering our nation's already existing debt. While a position like Town Hall's is too idealistic in its belief that capitalism can right this situation, it's also unlikely that taking Politico's pro-government stance too far could result in excess spending. We'll see how this plays out, but for now I'm skeptical.
-Zoe Leverant
Politico, usually a more fact-based blog, applauded CitiGroup CEO Vikram Pandit's admission that the recent purchase of a corporate jet was in poor taste considering the country's economic climate. The post, however, deemed this was not nearly enough and that Wall Street "just doesn't get it." Although I agree that CEO salaries and expenditures are preposterously high, it's a bit of a tall order to ask an industry founded on money to suddenly give up distributing it to its top employees.
The Huffington Post surprised me, however. In a post by Columbia economics professor Jeffrey Sachs, the author advocates for the taxpayers, not the government, to liquidate bad assets. I expect such a liberally-minded site to be enthusiastic about big government taking responsibility for national crises, but this article calls for Washington to be the facilitator and not the prime actor in dealing with the problem.
Of course, conservative blog Town Hall found the proposal to use taxpayer money to bail out bands enraging. One post on the issue claimed that bailing out banks is "putting bank investors ahead of the taxpayer." Another worried that government bailout of the bands would "convert the world's greatest engine of free market prosperity into a socialistic leviathan."
The sheer cost of the stimulus plan is in itself terrifying, especially considering our nation's already existing debt. While a position like Town Hall's is too idealistic in its belief that capitalism can right this situation, it's also unlikely that taking Politico's pro-government stance too far could result in excess spending. We'll see how this plays out, but for now I'm skeptical.
-Zoe Leverant
Subsidizing Unemployment Benefits..would that be helpful in the longrun?
Lately the news has been flooded with talk about the Stimulus Package. Is it right, is there a better way, exactly how is it going to help the American People come out of the slump they are in?
Gary Ross wrote about this very subject on his blog at , but he thinks there is a better way to go about the stimulus package. This is because of the current obstacles the stimulus package currently entails.
Ross says why not use unemployment to benefit workers in a new job by letting them subsidize a portion of it by underwriting their a chunk of it for their benefit.
He believes that this will help the employer, the employee, and even the government.
He seems to have a point when he mentions that the government pays for unemployment anyways, which means they wouldn't be paying anymore than they would have originally. However, most people reading his blog disagree with his view. They feel that this will help the unemployed, stay unemployed.
I guess we will just have to wait and see how this new stimulus package works out.
~Amanda Yerby
Gary Ross wrote about this very subject on his blog at , but he thinks there is a better way to go about the stimulus package. This is because of the current obstacles the stimulus package currently entails.
Ross says why not use unemployment to benefit workers in a new job by letting them subsidize a portion of it by underwriting their a chunk of it for their benefit.
He believes that this will help the employer, the employee, and even the government.
He seems to have a point when he mentions that the government pays for unemployment anyways, which means they wouldn't be paying anymore than they would have originally. However, most people reading his blog disagree with his view. They feel that this will help the unemployed, stay unemployed.
I guess we will just have to wait and see how this new stimulus package works out.
~Amanda Yerby
The Right to Choose
By Alissa Scheller
Nadya Suleman became famous almost overnight.
The night of January 26, to be exact. That was when she gave birth to octuplets, and became the second mother in the United States to do so.
Shortly after the octuplets were born, the public learned that Suleman was single , already has six children, is unemployed, and lives with her mother. These new pieces of information on the Suleman clan sparked debate all over the internet, centering around one main question: is any single mother really capable of raising fourteen children?
This debate comes at an interesting time. With the recent anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court case that legalized abortion in the U. S., as well as a new pro-choice president, many Americans are celebrating the freedom to choose.
What do we do, however, when life is chosen?
Well, we tend to give the mother a hard time.
Now, yes, I will admit it. I am a pro-choice feminist. However, I think the recent internet debate over Suleman’s choice is an interesting one. Many people have condemned her decision to have her children, saying there’s no possible way she can support them, that she will not be able to provide them with the emotional care they need, and that having fourteen children is unethical in an overcrowded world.
While these arguments have merit, I think the fact that Suleman did make a choice – she chose to have in-vitro fertilization, and she chose to keep her babies – is something some people forget too easily.
On a slightly different note, who thinks it’s ridiculous to use a pro-choice president’s image in an anti-abortion ad?
Nadya Suleman became famous almost overnight.
The night of January 26, to be exact. That was when she gave birth to octuplets, and became the second mother in the United States to do so.
Shortly after the octuplets were born, the public learned that Suleman was single , already has six children, is unemployed, and lives with her mother. These new pieces of information on the Suleman clan sparked debate all over the internet, centering around one main question: is any single mother really capable of raising fourteen children?
This debate comes at an interesting time. With the recent anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court case that legalized abortion in the U. S., as well as a new pro-choice president, many Americans are celebrating the freedom to choose.
What do we do, however, when life is chosen?
Well, we tend to give the mother a hard time.
Now, yes, I will admit it. I am a pro-choice feminist. However, I think the recent internet debate over Suleman’s choice is an interesting one. Many people have condemned her decision to have her children, saying there’s no possible way she can support them, that she will not be able to provide them with the emotional care they need, and that having fourteen children is unethical in an overcrowded world.
While these arguments have merit, I think the fact that Suleman did make a choice – she chose to have in-vitro fertilization, and she chose to keep her babies – is something some people forget too easily.
On a slightly different note, who thinks it’s ridiculous to use a pro-choice president’s image in an anti-abortion ad?
First off, let me say, I am a Republican. I know this may sound shocking when considering the levels of dialog I’ve contributed to in class in the past- more notably and enjoyably, our (collective) advocacy of marijuana and requesting Professor Finn to go “E! True Hollywood Story” mode on the late, beloved Jerry Garcia. Nonetheless, I do support the GOP and am proud to do so.
Now that I’ve made my political affiliations and (some) viewpoints clear, I need to talk about the two dumbest donkeys in the room. Someone has to explain to me the recent, utter stupidity of Reid and Pelosi. My motivation is not because they’re Democrats (there are plenty of Republicans I wouldn’t mind seeing walk over the edge of a cliff), but rather due to such irresponsible behavior. This is something I believe everyone can agree on, no matter where you sit on the aisle.
Both the Drudge Report and the Huntington Post (I’d rather be waterboarded than read the latter) indicated their own perplexity of the situation. They highlighted a Politico story by Glenn Thrush in which the Senate Majority Leader and Speaker of the House dismissed all communication skills, ethics or common sense. Reid publicly announced an approved, completed stimulus package before Pelosi went to a meeting to discuss unresolved allocations of $21 billion. It isn’t clear which genius was responsible for the situation as both their camps deny blame.
It’s just unbelievable how in such grave economic times, caution was thrown out the door, delicacy and care was swept under the rug. The package is earmarked from head to toe with enough pork that even a secular Jew wouldn’t touch it. I just can’t put my finger on it, but (as I scratch my head) it seems like apathy, not change, has come to American politics. To be honest, I’m not sure if that’s really different anyway. Even New York City congressman Charlie Rangel, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, went as far as to laughingly say that “[Senate Democrats] don’t know everything that’s in the bill.” That’s wonderful news Charlie… just wonderful.
As I conclude my electronic venting and wonder if change will ever come to America, I refer back to the musically enlightened. The most appropriate since its use of origin, The Who truly said it best: Meet the new boss… same as the old boss.
- Justin Ellis
Now that I’ve made my political affiliations and (some) viewpoints clear, I need to talk about the two dumbest donkeys in the room. Someone has to explain to me the recent, utter stupidity of Reid and Pelosi. My motivation is not because they’re Democrats (there are plenty of Republicans I wouldn’t mind seeing walk over the edge of a cliff), but rather due to such irresponsible behavior. This is something I believe everyone can agree on, no matter where you sit on the aisle.
Both the Drudge Report and the Huntington Post (I’d rather be waterboarded than read the latter) indicated their own perplexity of the situation. They highlighted a Politico story by Glenn Thrush in which the Senate Majority Leader and Speaker of the House dismissed all communication skills, ethics or common sense. Reid publicly announced an approved, completed stimulus package before Pelosi went to a meeting to discuss unresolved allocations of $21 billion. It isn’t clear which genius was responsible for the situation as both their camps deny blame.
It’s just unbelievable how in such grave economic times, caution was thrown out the door, delicacy and care was swept under the rug. The package is earmarked from head to toe with enough pork that even a secular Jew wouldn’t touch it. I just can’t put my finger on it, but (as I scratch my head) it seems like apathy, not change, has come to American politics. To be honest, I’m not sure if that’s really different anyway. Even New York City congressman Charlie Rangel, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, went as far as to laughingly say that “[Senate Democrats] don’t know everything that’s in the bill.” That’s wonderful news Charlie… just wonderful.
As I conclude my electronic venting and wonder if change will ever come to America, I refer back to the musically enlightened. The most appropriate since its use of origin, The Who truly said it best: Meet the new boss… same as the old boss.
- Justin Ellis
Kate Pinkerton
Recently, it was discovered that a peanut plant in Atlanta, Georgia had poor practices that led to an outbreak of salmonella that killed 8 people and made hundreds of people sick. This news was everywhere- in newspapers, on television, and therefore, on the lips of many people. Our food system is so complicated now that if even just one plant is tainted, thousands of products could be affected.
Many of the news sources first stated that there was a salmonella outbreak, but they were unsure of the source. On January 10th, 2009, the Associated Press released a national briefing stating that “Federal officials have not yet identified the cause of a salmonella outbreak striking almost 400 people in 42 states, but state officials in Minnesota said they believed peanut butter might be involved.” Eventually, they linked it to the plant in Georgia. The problem I have is that I did not hear much about the salmonella until it was linked to peanut butter. Does this mean that the press was informed of the outbreak, but did not want to release information and scare the public until an answer was close? Or was it the researchers who were not releasing information? Basically, ever since the closing of the plant in Georgia, the peanut story has been on almost every episode of the evening news and in multiple articles in newspapers. This may be because peanut butter is something that almost everyone eats in America, and would cause an uproar.
According to a US News online article, Barack Obama wants to make sure that federal information is more transparent, like the status of a salmonella outbreak from the FDA. Once the outbreak was linked to peanut butter, the FDA did a great job of listing products that were contaminated on its website, as well as updating people via twitter.
In the average newspaper story or nightly news, they emphasize the politics of the issue. They want to know who is in charge of testing for salmonella, who let the peanuts continue to be shipped, and what the FDA is saying. On Tuesday night, they emphasized that yet another plant run by the same company was being shut down due to similar contamination issues. These national news sources emphasize what is wrong with the overall system of food testing and government regulation.
However, a very local paper, like the American University Eagle, emphasizes very different aspects of the story. It answers of the questions of when peanut butter will return to campus, how the campus was affected, how students feel about the lack of peanut butter in the cafeteria, and how the food officials on campus are handling aspects of the situation. Many students miss their peanut butter, but understand that its absence is a precaution they are willing to take. Even though I live off campus and do not go to TDR anymore, I'm really glad our paper took a local jab at a national problem.
More emphasis should have been put on the universities and care facilities that were the largest recipients of the tainted peanuts. Instead, they focused on what consumers would get off the shelves, even though most of those products were okay.
Many of the news sources first stated that there was a salmonella outbreak, but they were unsure of the source. On January 10th, 2009, the Associated Press released a national briefing stating that “Federal officials have not yet identified the cause of a salmonella outbreak striking almost 400 people in 42 states, but state officials in Minnesota said they believed peanut butter might be involved.” Eventually, they linked it to the plant in Georgia. The problem I have is that I did not hear much about the salmonella until it was linked to peanut butter. Does this mean that the press was informed of the outbreak, but did not want to release information and scare the public until an answer was close? Or was it the researchers who were not releasing information? Basically, ever since the closing of the plant in Georgia, the peanut story has been on almost every episode of the evening news and in multiple articles in newspapers. This may be because peanut butter is something that almost everyone eats in America, and would cause an uproar.
According to a US News online article, Barack Obama wants to make sure that federal information is more transparent, like the status of a salmonella outbreak from the FDA. Once the outbreak was linked to peanut butter, the FDA did a great job of listing products that were contaminated on its website, as well as updating people via twitter.
In the average newspaper story or nightly news, they emphasize the politics of the issue. They want to know who is in charge of testing for salmonella, who let the peanuts continue to be shipped, and what the FDA is saying. On Tuesday night, they emphasized that yet another plant run by the same company was being shut down due to similar contamination issues. These national news sources emphasize what is wrong with the overall system of food testing and government regulation.
However, a very local paper, like the American University Eagle, emphasizes very different aspects of the story. It answers of the questions of when peanut butter will return to campus, how the campus was affected, how students feel about the lack of peanut butter in the cafeteria, and how the food officials on campus are handling aspects of the situation. Many students miss their peanut butter, but understand that its absence is a precaution they are willing to take. Even though I live off campus and do not go to TDR anymore, I'm really glad our paper took a local jab at a national problem.
More emphasis should have been put on the universities and care facilities that were the largest recipients of the tainted peanuts. Instead, they focused on what consumers would get off the shelves, even though most of those products were okay.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)