Barack Obama Essay

[Monkey_Grill]

Written by me.

Economy Essay                                                                                                           Daniel Kaluza

   This economic crisis has brought many laughs to my friends and I. It's been great! We joke about the “share the wealth plan” saying that we'll get Ferrari's and never have to work again. My friends and I have really been enjoying these past few months, but I'm not sure how we'll react to the economy in the future.

   Let's get this straight. The economic crisis has not affected me or anyone that I know. Right now I can joke about it, but if the stimulus package back fires, it could have huge consequences for me in the future. According to usatoday.com, the stimulus package is $787 billion.1 That's a lot of money to be spending. If the stimulus package does not work, America could be in big trouble.

   America Morning on CNN did a report on Barack Obama's potentially new helicopters. Just one costs $400 Million. According to CNN just one of these helicopters would be more expensive than any other aircraft in the world.2 Yes, the President needs a vehicle that can protect him, but $400 million? You could buy an F-22 Raptor and still have money left over with $400 million. That is a bit crazy when people around America are losing their jobs and their homes.

   With the stimulus bill being 647 pages3, some one on CNN said “did the President even read all of the bill?” This could be possible, given the fact that the bill is so large. I wouldn't be able to read all of it. With a bill being this large, does it have necessary spending or just pork? Is the government just throwing money at anything spendable to “jump start” the economy, as some had said? This could be true. We'll just have to wait and see if the “jump start” saved the dieing American economy.

   One of my teachers made a good comment about the recession. He said that a recession is somewhat of a good thing. That companies that have been spending carelessly and not creating good products will close, while the competitors will rise to the top. I agree with my teacher's saying because it is true. Companies that produce junk, compared to their competitors, should be closed. “It's like taking out the trash”, my teacher said. If a business wants my money, they better produce a good product, not like some crappy off-brand. Hopefully the recession wipes out the saying “quantity over quality”.

   What caused the economic crisis? Greed and laziness. Our banks were so greedy that they would give under qualified people mortgages who were trying to buy multi-millionaire homes. Our automakers had the mind set of “quantity over quality”. And our government allowed free trade with other nations. Over time people became more lazy and tried to cut as many corners as possible to make money, this resulted in the economic crisis. Can Barack Obama fix our mistakes?

   According to the New York Times, the economy is “likely to get significantly worse over the course of 2009, no matter what President Obama and Congress do.”4 Unfortunately, this statement could be true. If the economy gets worst, unemployment could hit close to home.

   It would have been nice to see what would of happen to the economy without any bailouts from Congress or the stimulus bill. I don't think Congress should of gave bailout money to major banks like Citigroup and Bank of America. It was funny to hear that the congressmen asked the CEOs how they traveled to Washington D.C. Instead of riding on commercial planes, the CEOs flew to D.C. in their own multi-million dollar private jets.  Instead of the banks begging for money, they should of sold their jets. If they needed more money they should of filed bankruptcy.

   As for the automakers, I'm pretty much natural on the issue if they should have been bailed out or not. Our automakers provide many jobs for Americans, and they are a key company to America. I do think the automakers were not making 100 percent reliable products, but we definitely need these companies. To allow foreign companies to provide us with automobiles won't make the economy any better.

   The war in Iraq and in Afghanistan is not helping the economy either. “Former White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey reckoned that the conflict would cost $100 billion to $200 billion.” “Administration officials insisted that the costs would be more like $50 billion to $60 billion.”1 We have spent $3 trillion and it is predicted that we will spend more.1  The Iraq war will not be won, and Afghanistan is another story. In order for the economy to turn around, the wars need to stop now. Unfortunately, we cannot pull out at this time. The current state of Iraq's and Afghanistan's government is a joke. They will simply collapse if we pull out now.

   President Obama is trying to combat the economic crisis with the signing of the stimulus bill and with a plan to save homes. Obama's new housing plan will “provide refinancing to four to five million 'responsible homeowners'”. The housing plan will help three to four million people lower monthly payments.2 I'm glad to see that the money is going toward people who deserve it, and not to the bums who try to claw their way to the top. America needs more of these “responsible homeowners”. If everyone was like that, we probably wouldn't be in this crisis.

   Obama and his team have a lot on their plate, and they must work wisely if they wish to turn America's economy around. The economy is in a bad shape, but over time it will get better—it may just not be as fast as people hoped it to be. My friend John Schlup says it won't recover with Obama in office and that Obama is destroying America. I don't know if America will be destroyed, but I do know that someone is going to have to pay for all of these bail outs—the future generation of America. It may not be fun with all the taxes to pay off the bailouts, but at least we can keep our homes and our country.

[Destro]

   One of my teachers made a good comment about the recession. He said that a recession is somewhat of a good thing. That companies that have been spending carelessly and not creating good products will close, while the competitors will rise to the top. I agree with my teacher's saying because it is true. Companies that produce junk, compared to their competitors, should be closed. “It's like taking out the trash”, my teacher said. If a business wants my money, they better produce a good product, not like some crappy off-brand. Hopefully the recession wipes out the saying “quantity over quality”.

True.  The problem, though, is that the government is using our future money to keep the crappy companies afloat.  It flies in the face of the ideas of the anti-trust laws.  The gov't is keeping these companies alive that produce sub-par products and help to keep the competition out.

   What caused the economic crisis? Greed and laziness. Our banks were so greedy that they would give under qualified people mortgages who were trying to buy multi-millionaire homes. Our automakers had the mind set of “quantity over quality”. And our government allowed free trade with other nations. Over time people became more lazy and tried to cut as many corners as possible to make money, this resulted in the economic crisis. Can Barack Obama fix our mistakes?

Let's not forget the COmmunity Reinvestment Act that Jimmy Carter signed into law in 1977.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act  It basically forced banks to lend to people who were not qualified.  Our next president from Democratic party, Bill Clinton, then added onto this in 1992 making it even worse.  That link I provided will probably have some info on that as well.

   Obama's new housing plan will “provide refinancing to four to five million 'responsible homeowners'”.

He said "responsible homeowners", but that is not what he meant.  He is going to bail out people whose homes are "underwater".  In other words, people who paid more for their house than what it was worth, got a loan on a house they couldn't afford, and are now about to lose it.  That is not what I call "responsible homeowners".  I bought my house in 2003.  I was "responsible".  I bought something I could afford, and my house payment compared to my salary now is affordable.  I repeat.  I was "responsible".  I am now beginning to regret not getting a hosue that cost 3 times as much that I couldn't afford because now I know the gov't would have bailed me out.  I could have a nicer house right now if I had been LESS responsible.

My friend John Schlup says it won't recover with Obama in office and that Obama is destroying America.

I agree with Schlup.  The economy may recover with Obama in office, but he isn't making it any easier.  I do think he is destroying us though.

Anyhow...good essay.

[Monkey_Grill]

Just a note: The reason for the random numbers through out the essasy stand for Reference numbers to websites.

[Sir-diealot]

Obama = The Beast

[Schlup]

Obama = The Beast

You might be careful with your usage old timer.  Apparently it is hip to be known as a beast to the youngin's.

[Sir-diealot]

You might be careful with your usage old timer.  Apparently it is hip to be known as a beast to the youngin's.

Obama = Satan's little helper. That better?

[Schlup]

Yes...much better and very clear.

[SolidSnake]

Call me Satanic, but IMO Obama is doing what he can with what he has. He did not screw up the economy, the idiot before him did. He is just doing what he thinks is best to fix it. Awfully funny how everyone criticizes the man stepping up to the plate, but no one is mentioning the man who just struck out...Change was needed, it is here. How can anyone say what they would do given the oppertunity, unless they are sitting in the hotseat being shot down by congress? Sleep on it...

[Destro]

Call me Satanic, but IMO Obama is doing what he can with what he has. He did not screw up the economy, the idiot before him did. He is just doing what he thinks is best to fix it. Awfully funny how everyone criticizes the man stepping up to the plate, but no one is mentioning the man who just struck out...Change was needed, it is here. How can anyone say what they would do given the oppertunity, unless they are sitting in the hotseat being shot down by congress? Sleep on it...

Let me preface this by saying that I don't like Bush.  He was a big spender, and too big of government.  Anyhow...

Sleep on what?  Obama isn't in the hotseat being shot down by congress.  That was George Bush.  Bush is just the pincushion where everyone sticks their complaints.  He is the target for anyone who has any problem with our country.  Let's talk about Barney Frank if you want to talk about people in Gov't who screwed us over.  Let's not forget what failures Pelosi and Reid have been this entire time.  Talkin about "the man who just struck out" let's look back at the end of 2000.  Does anyone remember the economy taking a bit of a nosedive then?  I saw a lot of people get laid off at that time, and our economy has never gotten back to where it was.  It is funny because Clinton got none of the blame.  Bush hadn't even been sworn in yet and he was catching all the blame.  Obama gets into office, things get worse, and THAT is also Bush's fault.  Someone explain this to me.  It is simply capitalism.  When Clinton was in, the markte was over-inflated, and Clinton unjustifiably got the credit for the booming economy. When the market corrected itself, it was Bush's "falut".

Obama did not do anything personally to screw up the economy and neither did George Bush.  Obama is certainly making it worse, and this "stimulus" is just a mislabled spending package.  It is nothing more than the big spenders in Washington (like Obama) exploiting a bad economy to implement their agenda.  So now we are in this "crisis" where money is tight, and somehow they think the best idea is to spend our way out of it?  Somebody explain that logic to me.  We are in this mess because people couldn't live within their means, and now the government is going to do the same exact thing on a gigantic scale.  Totally absurd.  The fact is if you want to help, you CUT spending and CUT taxes; it's the exact opposite of what these fools are doing.

As long as we blame the economy on the gov't and believe that it is their responsibility to fix it, we are going to keep marching down the road to communism.  George Bush wasn't writing mortgages. 

The fact is that if the gov't would have left the mortgage industry alone back in 1978, we wouldn't be in this mess now.  We need LESS gov't involvement, not more.

Change is needed, but it ain't here.  How is bringing Rahm Emanuel or Hillary Clinton in "change"?  This is the thing with Obama, the guy can say anything and people eat it up.  The guy can say 2 plus 2 is 5, and people will believe it (little George Orwell reference for you).  He says he wants to help people who were "responsible" with their mortgage who need help.  Well the people that he plans on helping are people that can't afford what they bought, not people like me who live within their means.  Tell me how that is responsible.  But, because he said it, people believe it.  I have never seen anything like it.

You know what change we need?  We need to remove these earmarks and the ability to add all this ridiculous pork into these bills before they get passed.  You pass a bill based on the issue.  You don't make it into 1000+ pages with all kinds of unrelated nonsense. 

We have the same party controlling Congress that has been controlling it for the past couple of years, and things have only gotten worse.  Let's not forget that the House and Senate hold plenty of power on their own.  It's not like the president does it all alone.  I see no "change" there.

"censored" you snake, must you get me so fired up? 

[Sir-diealot]

Call me Satanic, but IMO Obama is doing what he can with what he has. He did not screw up the economy, the idiot before him did. He is just doing what he thinks is best to fix it. Awfully funny how everyone criticizes the man stepping up to the plate, but no one is mentioning the man who just struck out...Change was needed, it is here. How can anyone say what they would do given the oppertunity, unless they are sitting in the hotseat being shot down by congress? Sleep on it...

Hate to tell you but Bush did not Clinton did. It is well known that the policies of the last president show in the following presidents term. You will see this over and over again as when the Dem. party leaves office that the economy takes a nose dive as there policies start to show their spoiled fruits and after a Republican leaves the economy start to go on an upswing because the policies of the Rep. of started to show their fruits. Also Obama has supported foreign abortions with OUR money as well as stem cell research using the cells of children. He is also very anti God in his statements and all this returns him to being what I said in the first place, "Satan's little helper" Oh and Bush was "shot down" by congress more than any other I can remember. I will consider sleeping on it right after you wake up to it.

[SolidSnake]

...This is going to get nasty, which is why politics and religion are tabu in conversation. But here goes... Obama is nothing more than any other president was, the face of Congress. With that said, to Sir's post:

You will see this over and over again as when the Dem. party leaves office that the economy takes a nose dive as there policies start to show their spoiled fruits and after a Republican leaves the economy start to go on an upswing because the policies of the Rep. of started to show their fruits.

You guys say Clinton screwed up the economy, bush got the blame. So how is it when the economy is screwed up with Obama coming into office, Bush is not to blame? You said the previous president is at fault, which was Bush. And Destro, I'm not against you personally, and feel similar in your living situation. But how can you say that Obama isn't in the hotseat? He is walking into the worst economic situation this country has faced in over 50 yrs. And expected to fix it with bells on. Any presidential candidate this past term deserves a medal just for running in the state the economy was/is in. And now we have someone willing to try to do something to fix the situation, whether right or wrong, and no one can exept it because he is not who they wanted in office. Sorry, McCain didn't get voted in, but that's just how it is. Not that he showed ANY promise of economic reversall in his debates.

[Destro]

If you want to blame Bush, I'm all ears, I just don't see where you can blame him really.  He gets the blame for EVERYTHING that is wrong all the time, but nobody ever puts up any facts to back it.  They just say it's his fault and move on.  I don't like the way he ran things and can fault him for a lot of things, but not for the state of the economy.  I can site specific examples of Clinton being to blame, just as history will be able to provide specific examples of how Obama will be to blame for our debt. 

This is not the worst economy in 50 years.  It is the worst economy sine 1982.  The economy took a huge hit in 1978 when Carter was in office, and the democrats controlled Congress and the Supreme Court.  Carter also ran on "Change", and it seems we are seeing his second term.

My opinion is that the problem is exactly what you said, Snake, when you said Obama is "expected to fix it with bells on".  Obama and the rest of the government should get out of the way of capitalism.  They are lifting up these banks and companies that deseve to fail and make room for more efficient and better businesses.  Instead, they are keeping them around.  Govt's job is to keep up safe and provide infrastructure, not to bail out private companies.

Because people expect the government to take action, it opens the door for government to do whatever they want under the guise of fixing the economy. 

If you want to help the economy, you CUT spending, not increase it.  I know at times in my life when I have been hurting for cash, the LAST thing I do is go on a spending spree.  The gov't should cut spending and cut taxes.  When you cut taxes, you give people more money to spend.  When people spend more, it is good for business and jobs.  It is that simple.  When the gov't spends money, it is done extremely inefficiently.  I don't know that there has ever been an exact number, but the numbers I have seen say that for every tax dollar that goes in, 70 to 50 cents comes out.  It seems much more efficient to allow the people to spend the money than for the government to do it. 

As for your hotseat statement, Snake, I must've misunderstood what you said.  I thought you were saying Congress was holding him on the hot seat.

[Sir-diealot]

...This is going to get nasty, which is why politics and religion are tabu in conversation. But here goes... Obama is nothing more than any other president was, the face of Congress. With that said, to Sir's post: You guys say Clinton screwed up the economy, bush got the blame. So how is it when the economy is screwed up with Obama coming into office, Bush is not to blame? You said the previous president is at fault, which was Bush. And Destro, I'm not against you personally, and feel similar in your living situation. But how can you say that Obama isn't in the hotseat? He is walking into the worst economic situation this country has faced in over 50 yrs. And expected to fix it with bells on. Any presidential candidate this past term deserves a medal just for running in the state the economy was/is in. And now we have someone willing to try to do something to fix the situation, whether right or wrong, and no one can exept it because he is not who they wanted in office. Sorry, McCain didn't get voted in, but that's just how it is. Not that he showed ANY promise of economic reversall in his debates.

That is real easy to answer Snake. Clinton was in office for 8 years which is about the time it takes for the policies to start to show and that is when Bush came in. Now in the next 2-8 years you will start to see the change brought on by the Bush Policies. As for why is Obama not in the hot seat goes you must be out of your mind! He is the media darling and has not been laid into at all compared to what Bush was in his first few months in office. The media and the liberals have walked hand in hand for as long as I can remember so Obama will never go through what a Conservative or Republican would because the media know not to bite the hand that feeds it. Oh and just so you know I did not like McCain at all, but a bad Republican is better than a good Democrat any day of the week. Oh and Obama STILL won't show any proof that he is an American Citizen and every time there is a case to make him prove it it has been shut down by what? You guessed it a liberal or Democrat. There are at least 4 open cases right now on the subject.

[SolidSnake]

If you want to blame Bush, I'm all ears...
 
Obama and the rest of the government should get out of the way of capitalism.  They are lifting up these banks and companies that deseve to fail and make room for more efficient and better businesses.  Instead, they are keeping them around.  Govt's job is to keep up safe and provide infrastructure, not to bail out private companies.

It's not that I *want* to blame Bush for anything. I am just trying to follow the logic stated earlier which was that you see the previous presidents actions in the following presidents term. If Clinton's mistakes made Bush's term foul, then Bush's term is making Obama's term what it is, correct?

I could not agree more, in fact, there is not a percentage available for how much I agree. The gov't is supposed to remain neutral in society, causing as little change as possilbe. But, I feel a little differently when it comes to cause/effect. If the government screwed something up, it's their job to fix it. If I make a mistake at work, it's my job to fix it...IMO the war caused the rising debt, which led to the state of the economy, which makes it the gov'ts fault. Thus making it their responsibility to fix. With that said, I still disagree with how they plan to fix it, but a failed plan is better than no plan at all. And if by some "miracle" the economy does bounce back, is Obama a hero, or is he still a fool?

[Sir-diealot]

It's not that I *want* to blame Bush for anything. I am just trying to follow the logic stated earlier which was that you see the previous presidents actions in the following presidents term. If Clinton's mistakes made Bush's term foul, then Bush's term is making Obama's term what it is, correct?

I could not agree more, in fact, there is not a percentage available for how much I agree. The gov't is supposed to remain neutral in society, causing as little change as possilbe. But, I feel a little differently when it comes to cause/effect. If the government screwed something up, it's their job to fix it. If I make a mistake at work, it's my job to fix it...IMO the war caused the rising debt, which led to the state of the economy, which makes it the gov'ts fault. Thus making it their responsibility to fix. With that said, I still disagree with how they plan to fix it, but a failed plan is better than no plan at all. And if by some "miracle" the economy does bounce back, is Obama a hero, or is he still a fool?

No not a hero but the benefactor of the Bush administration.

[Destro]

It's not that I *want* to blame Bush for anything. I am just trying to follow the logic stated earlier which was that you see the previous presidents actions in the following presidents term. If Clinton's mistakes made Bush's term foul, then Bush's term is making Obama's term what it is, correct?

I could not agree more, in fact, there is not a percentage available for how much I agree. The gov't is supposed to remain neutral in society, causing as little change as possilbe. But, I feel a little differently when it comes to cause/effect. If the government screwed something up, it's their job to fix it. If I make a mistake at work, it's my job to fix it...IMO the war caused the rising debt, which led to the state of the economy, which makes it the gov'ts fault. Thus making it their responsibility to fix. With that said, I still disagree with how they plan to fix it, but a failed plan is better than no plan at all. And if by some "miracle" the economy does bounce back, is Obama a hero, or is he still a fool?

I'm not saying you personally want to blame Bush.  I'm just saying people in general.  I was not saying that the down turn that happend when Bush came in was any president's fault. 

What we had at the end of 2000 was the result of an over-inflated market, similar to the housing bubble really.  It had nothing to do with the president.  I was sorta saying the same thing you are saying.  When crap fell apart even BEFORE Bush came into office, it was Bush's fault, and now that things are falling apart after Obama gets in, that is also Bush's fault.  I don't get the logic.  I'm not saying you are personally saying that.  I'm talking about those who readily blame Bush for everything.  There are enough legitimate things to blame on him like being lax on illegal immigration and his high spending.  Those things I will not argue against.  But, to blame the state of the economy on Bush is giving him credit for having way more power than he has.  It goes along with the people that claimed he was this mastermind behind stealing the election and planning the 9/11 attacks, yet those people also claim that he has an IQ of 85 and is the stupidest human to ever hold any office.  They don't line up.

What we are seeing now Clinton DOES have a hand in as well as Carter, and I can point you straight to the Community Reinvestment Act for Carter's piece, and the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 for Clinton's piece.  There are no comparable forms of legislation that tie Bush to it, and our situation would be what it is regardless of who was in office from 2000-2008.  I'm not saying that the guy who just left office is automatically the one who should get the blame or the credit.  Some things take time to fester before they boil over.  I'm not saying that the situation we are in is Obama's fault.  I am just saying he is exploiting it and as a result making things worse. 

The thing is that the gov't is not fixing anything.  That is my point.  Even if what they do does work, it's no skin off the government's back.  Those of us who pay taxes are the ones who are paying for it, and I am not real keen on paying for the government's mistakes.

[SolidSnake]

I'm not saying you personally want to blame Bush.  I'm just saying people in general.  I was not saying that the down turn that happend when Bush came in was any president's fault. 

What we had at the end of 2000 was the result of an over-inflated market, similar to the housing bubble really.  It had nothing to do with the president.  I was sorta saying the same thing you are saying.  When crap fell apart even BEFORE Bush came into office, it was Bush's fault, and now that things are falling apart after Obama gets in, that is also Bush's fault.  I don't get the logic.  I'm not saying you are personally saying that.  I'm talking about those who readily blame Bush for everything.  There are enough legitimate things to blame on him like being lax on illegal immigration and his high spending.  Those things I will not argue against.  But, to blame the state of the economy on Bush is giving him credit for having way more power than he has.  It goes along with the people that claimed he was this mastermind behind stealing the election and planning the 9/11 attacks, yet those people also claim that he has an IQ of 85 and is the stupidest human to ever hold any office.  They don't line up.

What we are seeing now Clinton DOES have a hand in as well as Carter, and I can point you straight to the Community Reinvestment Act for Carter's piece, and the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 for Clinton's piece.  There are no comparable forms of legislation that tie Bush to it, and our situation would be what it is regardless of who was in office from 2000-2008.  I'm not saying that the guy who just left office is automatically the one who should get the blame or the credit.  Some things take time to fester before they boil over.  I'm not saying that the situation we are in is Obama's fault.  I am just saying he is exploiting it and as a result making things worse. 

The thing is that the gov't is not fixing anything.  That is my point.  Even if what they do does work, it's no skin off the government's back.  Those of us who pay taxes are the ones who are paying for it, and I am not real keen on paying for the government's mistakes.

I can not find any fault in your logic, so I think we are at a wall. No one to argue with