Everywhere
you go, you hear news about the 2012 Presidential Election. Whether it's
watching your favorite television show, or even walking down the halls at New
Trier, there are always people talking about the election. This election will
most likely be decided by one factor - the economy. The election will come down
to this: If the general public thinks they are better off now than they were
four years ago, they will probably vote for Obama. If they don't, they will
probably vote for Romney. If that previous statement holds true, Obama will win
the election.
In 2009, Barack Obama
announced the one of the biggest federal stimulus bills of all time - the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This was a bill that was supposed to
create jobs and save the economy from a complete crash during the recession.
The way it was supposed to create jobs was through federal stimulus, investing
$841 billion dollars in tons of sectors of the US economy. This theory of
federal stimulus spending is backed up by the Keynesian macroeconomic (possible
microeconomic, I'm not one hundred percent sure about that) theory. Keynesian
economic theory believes that the best way to stop a recession is by investing
tons of money into the economy.
Of course, almost all
Conservatives hate the idea of stimulus spending and Keynesian economic theory
in general, because they think that stimulus spending has a net negative effect
on the economy. Both sides bicker about which policies are best for the
economy, and why. The Conservatives were proven wrong, says an article written
by David Firestone of the New York Times:
"But the stimulus did
far more than stimulate: it protected the most vulnerable from the recession’s
heavy winds. Of the act’s $840
billion final cost, $1.5 billion went to rent subsidies and emergency housing
that kept 1.2 million people under roofs. (That’s why the recession didn’t
produce rampant homelessness.) It increased spending on food stamps,
unemployment benefits and Medicaid, keeping at least seven million Americans
from falling below the poverty line."
Firestone argues that the
stimulus did its job - it put our economy in a far better position than it was
four years ago, and it also saved millions of Americans from being jobless and
homeless. If the average voter knew the statistics that Firestone presents, I
think they would be extremely satisfied and shocked. If they knew that the
economy is better than they think it is, and could perhaps improve even more
under Obama's policies, would they vote for him? I think so.
Is Keynesian economic theory
correct? Did the benefits outweigh the costs? If it is correct, does this mean
that Obama has a greater chance at winning the election? Now that you know my
thoughts, I'm curious to hear yours.
All the evidence from that article seems to point one way - the Obama administration managed to mitigate a catastrophe with the potential to be much larger than it was, and as such ought to have proportionately better chances in the election. And yet the Republicans have managed to alter the people's perception, resulting in a popular image of the stimulus as a wasteful mistake. Frankly, if I was writing speeches for the Democrats, I would have emphasized the true effects of the stimulus. I guess this is just more of what we've been seeing this year: twisting the facts, and even outright lying, to elicit a handful more votes.
ReplyDelete