the link above goes to and article on MSNMoney. Below are some of what I saw in the article and the interpretation that occured to me.
“But health insurance stocks were battered by the administration’s proposal to cut Medicare reimbursements.”
Alot of times, insurence companies are the middle man providing funds to the hospitals when medicare eligable operations are performed. This has been the government way of subsidizing somewhat private coverage for the poor. It seems Obama is looking to remove this subsidy, and with his ‘universal healthcare down payment’ is going to try and force these people directly onto a government system.
“Also hit hard were shares of, better known as Sallie Mae, the provider of education loans to college students. Sallie Mae was the biggest loser among S&P 500 stocks, falling 31% to $5.80. The administration is proposing to eliminate private lenders from the student loan market and have the federal government make all such loans directly.”
This is the part that should make you sit up and take notice the most. It would appear that the federal government is preparing a power grab in the post secondary education arena. Up until now the government has been content to subsidize private financing for college education. They’ll make it easier for you to get the loan, but the decisions are in your hands. Direct government control over who can get a loan to go to which school will destroy the freedom of choice in the college decision. I don’t see how anyone consider giving the government a potential power to steer individuals to the educaiton and trainging they choose as a good thing.
“Crude oil rose $2.72, or 6.4%, to $45.22 a barrel, its highest close since Feb. 6. Whilewas down 1% to $71.33″
Oil was up, but the largest oil producer in the country was down. I wonder if the fact that alot of Obama’s proposed tax increases target the energy sector could have something to do with this. It could atleast deserve a mention.
“There was plenty for Wall Street to hate and liberals to love in the administration’s $3.6 trillion budget outline, and the political battle ahead will be loud and nasty.”
Talk about a little bit of hackery. The intended connection here is obvious. The author is expressy presenting Wall Street as totally separate from liberals. the conneciton they’re drawing is Wall Street = conservative = bad. Go figure.
The authors also included some eye catching quotes:
“It’s a clear repudiation of Bush’s policy,” said University of Maryland economist Peter Morici. “It’s more Obama Robin Hood.”
“Republicans will call it class warfare. They will be correct,” wrote Andrew Leonard on the liberal Web site Salon. “But Republicans have no one to blame but themselves. If you cut taxes on the rich, and the rich drive the economy into a ditch, your position of moral superiority becomes shaky.”
The first quote I’ve always found personally aggrravating. Liberals love to use the folk hero of Robin Hood to show that it’s good and just to steal from those that have more than yourself. In this case, Obama is stealing from those ‘evil rich people’ and giving to you ‘good poor people,’ so Obama is the good hero. They always forget to mention that the villian in Robin Hood is the Sherrif. That is to say, the legally instituted (though treasonous) government. The reason that Robin had to ‘steal from the rich’ was that the Sherriff and the Nobes (those evil rich guys) were actually part of the government and were TAXING the country side to death. if someone was to go around and start robbing the US Treasury and giving out the spoils to the people, that would be more in line with the actual Robin Hood story.
the second quote mixes a frank admission on class warfare with wholesale stupidity. You see, the narritive here is that it is always those evil guys, not you, not government, but ‘other’ people (in this case rich) that are causing every problem in the world. The ‘rich,’ given all this free reign from the government, have destroyed the economy. As many have pointed out the weight that has drug us down in from the government literally paying (through GSEs) people to give out bad loans. As many times this has been said, it’s amazing that this kind of quote, with its disconnect from reality, can be so prominent in an article.
Overall the article, like most finiancial articles, has alot in the way of recent facts. It uses thses, and mixes them with stupidity, subtle lies, and damn lies completely misleading the average reader. it would be funny if it wasn’t sad