Freedoms Questioned

On October 18, 2012 USA Today published an article by the editorial board arguing that getting tough with Chinese trade will hurt us, not help us.  I believe the authors were credible because they are adequately representative of financial and economic groups within USA Today.  The intended audience is Americans.

The article states several reasons why "China Bashing" won't work.  For example, it says "U.S.-China is complex, the U.S. needs China to pressure North Korea against Iran's nuclear ambitions," which may not happen if trade with them halts.  Also, "if China stopped buying U.S. bonds, interest rates would increase."
The article claims that it would hurt American companies because their sales would decrease dramatically  due to no longer having a competitive edge.  Lastly, it states the plan simply wouldn't work.  "China will never change under pressure from the U.S.  It take them believing their policies are not in  their best interest for any serious change to occur.  The article suggests the U.S. should take a "more mature and sophisticated approach, and not one that could spark a trade war that would backfire on U.S. consumers and business," but never suggests what that should be.

I disagree.  We need to concentrate on growing our economy and that should include more U.S. made products, and less Chinese products, which will lead to growing U.S. businesses, and in turn more U.S. manufacturing jobs.  Why is this hard for some to believe?  It's simple, the more we rely on other countries the worse off we will be. Period. We need to become a  more independent country. If China wants our business they will conform to our standards.  We need to set in place incentives for companies who do their business here to help accommodate them for higher wages they pay here.  I think its important to become self-sufficient as a country, its affecting us now and will for future generations.

Presidential Debate

On October 2, 2012 The Washington Post published a commentary titled “A prime-time chance for candidates to discuss the future”, written by their editorial board.  I believe the authors are adequately credible because they each specialize in different areas of politics within the Washington Post.  Their intended audience is voting Americans, viewers of the presidential debate, and those interested in the realm of this election.

The commentary claims that “the 2012 presidential election has been about the past.” “…we hope the candidates will devote more attention to the future: specifically, to what they hope to accomplish over the next four years.”  It argues that the recent presidential debate was hardly informative in establishing what each candidate would do if he was elected for president.  I have to say I completely agree. As an undecided voter I was looking at this debate as an opportunity to see more defined plan or path each candidate would take if elected, but I don’t feel that I got that at all.

The article argues that President Obama had nothing hopeful to offer the unemployed, or how he’d persuade Congress to move the nation from mounting debt, and how we will overcome failure. And Mr. Romney was not much different, promising to get the economy growing again, and reducing tax rates, and reduce government spending.  But how?  Well, we don’t know.  It seems they both have a magic solution they won’t share. 

Though I do think these topics are not cut and dry easy things to explain in a short debate, I believe it is their obligation to tell us their solutions to some of the major problems we face today. Yes you need to cut spending, but what will you cut?  A couple programs aren't going to cut it. I think their fear of losing votes limits what they tell us.  But this is our right to know.  Maybe if candidates started being open and honest about their true thoughts and solutions we would get more done. We would, in a sense, know what to expect when they take office, and not be surprised by the broken promises.  I say tell us the truth, not what you think we want to hear.