Thursday, June 28, 2012

Soap Box

If you hear my 800 word soap box in favor of Barack Obama, I will hear yours.  Republicans are hung up on the national debt problem, and I agree that it is bad. However, economic recovery is not possible without a cost. (don't we go to college and buy a house and a car and have student
loans and car loans and home loans and business loans before we have a high enough earning potential to have a positive net worth by the time we retire in 40 years???)

This is how I see it:
Think of the relationships of businesses and consumers and employees.  A lively and profit-earning consumer-driven economy (yes, you are a consumer) produces revenue for the country, which needs taxes in order to function. In return, the country provides its citizens with protection (law enforcement, military), roads, libraries, schools, the freedom to work and play, access to fair medical care and fair credit and fair pay (Lilly Ledbetter--really? You want to repeal an act of law that allows women the opportunity to sue their employer if they are paid unfairly because of gender!?!?!) I need to go on?

The recession marks the loss of millions of working-class jobs (and subsequently those individuals' ability to continue as the same type of consumer they were beforehand) and then they lost their homes (because if you don't have a job, you can't pay your mortgage and your credit cards) and then the housing and financial market collapsed and those people lost their jobs, and it's a big domino effect... Okay, you get the picture.

President Obama is not responsible for the recession as some people think, since he took office AFTER we were already knee-deep. After President Obama took office, the downward-spiraling economy (think of a fast-moving train) had to be slowed in the direction it was going before it could stop and start going back in the other direction. Well, in this kind of recession that we are in, when the economy is crumbling exponentially, there would obviously be a increase in government spending in order to quickly implement programs that would help the working class get back on their feet, boost business small and large, support consumers, reboot the housing market, etc. This kind of recovery would cost the government dramatically more than during a Presidency where there isn't a national economic crisis to be corrected. The national debt is increasing exponentially yes, and this
fact by itself is disturbing, but in order to improve the economy, these programs cannot be overlooked. If opposing political parties argue that these programs are too costly and should be eliminated, they are saying that the people should be left to themselves to improve their economic circumstances without government intervention. How will existing companies keep their
workforce? How will small businesses get started? How will families be able to afford homes? And healthcare? How will they be able to catch up on the high-interest associated with credit card debt? (There are consumer behaviors that need to change here, too. How else do you explain how our economy got here in the first place?)

The Republican party is focused on simply saying "no" to Obama no matter what it is, with the intention of denying him a second Presidential term and repealing everything he has done. Why not look at the individual policies to determine their merit, instead of rejecting the whole package that is President Obama? Why turn a blind eye to the accomplishments and economic progress of the past few years simply because it has come with a cost? I do not agree with every single opinion and point of interest as this man, but I support him as the President of the United States because I see how much good he as accomplished in such a short amount of time; good that affects everyone!

This is positive progress for our nation, and electing someone who intends to undo everything that Obama has instituted will put this country farther behind on the road to recovery. We need to let these
programs pan out so that we fully benefit from the economic reconstruction they are designed to produce! Our nation is not united: we are divided in a blue- and red-sided tug of war. But I am willing to give a little on some of the smaller points of view in order to accept the improvement our nation can accomplish with the programs that President Obama has instituted. Put aside your political biases and see which compromises you are willing to accept for the betterment of our nation and its citizens (that would be you.)

This video is an understandable illustration of the ways that President Obama has made policies and programs that will help individuals, businesses, consumers, and the country. Please have an
open mind and consider that this is good progress that should not be discarded!


Karen Hill said...

This is an excellent opinion post!! And the video supports your views! It is sad that there are party lines at all--it is soooo similar to the Book of Mormon!! I also believe that Washington is an "old boys network" which makes permanent change difficult. I for one am fearful of the loss of the progress made.

ol' Bob said...

If I may offer a synopsis of your presentation, it appears to be that, as bad as things are, they would be worse had the Obama administration not enacted its programs and policies, and things will be worse if those programs and policies are not continued.

Leaving the economic assessment aside for a moment -- and I do disagree with it -- are there any reasons other than his economic policies why you support the Obama administration?

Jenny said...

Upon signing his first bill into law, President Obama made the following statement amongst his other remarks:

" First of all, it is fitting that the very first bill that I sign -- the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act -- (applause) -- that it is upholding one of this nation's founding principles: that we are all created equal, and each deserve a chance to pursue our own version of happiness."

I support President Obama because I believe he is doing everything that he can to improve the lives of the most people he can possibly reach. Whether it is through fair pay, fair access to health care, improving the opportunities for local businesses, economic recovery, etc.

So, what part of his economic plan do you disagree with exactly? Which public services do you think we should eliminate, and which groups of underserved people should we ignore because of their inability to get ahead?

ol' Bob said...

The cost to the country of the TARP, stimulus bills, and bailouts is out of proportion to the good produced (in my opinion), and I disagree with the assertion that the administration's policies have improved opportunities for businesses large or small, possibly except for those that have received waivers from some of those policies. Unfortunately we get into what-if conjectures in this area. We can't rewind time back to when the Democrats took control of both houses of congress in order to try something else, so all I can go on is historical examples.

Your question suggests that only the Obama administration could deal with the social issues that you list. I assert that social issues could be dealt with more effectively with other policies without the extreme consequences that you suggest.

However, one of my biggest reasons for objecting to Obama is not economic. It is the generally unwholesome nature of the administration: issues and events such as the Eric Holder justice department's failings, Fast and Furious, Obama's support of abortions at all stages of pregnancy with no restrictions, and his willingness to use executive orders to circumvent Constitutional processes and safeguards, to list a few.