After the bailout: Is Greece still doomed?

The debt-laden nation secures a whopping $170 billion lifeline — but few Greeks are breaking out the champagne This week, the so-called troika of lenders — the European Union, the European Central Bank (ECB), and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) — agreed to extend another massive aid package to debt-plagued Greece, its second since 2010. The $170 billion bailout comes just in time, forestalling Greece's default on a $19 billion debt payment due in March. Many European leaders are breathing a sigh of relief, since a default could have led to chaos in financial markets and the dissolution of the euro currency bloc. But they aren't exactly doing cartwheels in the streets either, because Greece continues to face daunting, perhaps insurmountable challenges. Even with this latest bailout, are Greece's financial problems beyond repair?

Yes. Greece is doomed: The bailout is predicated on "fairy-tale" projections, says Derek Thompson at The Atlantic. The troika forecasts that Greece's debt-to-GDP ratio will stabilize at 120 percent by 2020 — a "fantasy" that absurdly assumes that Greece's crippling recession "will stop accelerating sometime starting… yesterday." With a new round of harsh austerity measures setting in, the Greek economy will only contract further, putting Greece on track to record "one of the worst recessions for a developed country in modern history." Even with this latest bailout, Greece won't be able to pay its debts under that kind of pressure. The troika's plan is "unrealistic and doomed to fail."
"Greece is still doomed: why the new bailout is a fantasy"

Maybe. But the bailout at least buys time: The bailout isn't meant to solve all of Greece's debt problems, says Ezra Klein at The Washington Post. It simply prevents immediate catastrophe, and should allow Europe to "muddle along" for a few more years. "Perhaps, by then, the global recovery will be stronger than we had thought, or the rest of Europe will be in a stronger position to help push Greece over the finish line." Until then, "doomsday just keeps getting delayed." Maybe that's enough for now.
"Muddling along in Europe"

Greeks won't take this lying down: With no bright spots on the economic horizon, "the Greek people will suffer and Greece itself will go through a time of testing not seen since the unrest following World War II," says Rick Moran at American Thinker. Furthermore, the troika is taking unprecedented control over Greece's finances, all but demanding that Greece relinquish its "economic sovereignty." With new elections scheduled for April, don't be surprised if voters "throw out the entire government" in exchange for one that rejects the bailout deal altogether.
"Greek bailout a done deal"

SEE MORE: Will debt downgrades doom the eurozone recovery?

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

Obama's birth control compromise: 'Still unacceptable'?

The president offers an olive branch on his new contraception law — but Catholic bishops aren't exactly thrilled by his overture Retreat! After weeks of criticism, the Obama administration is offering an "accommodation" to U.S. Catholic bishops and other critics of a new federal rule that requires religiously affiliated hospitals, charities, and universities to provide their employees insurance with copay-free contraception. Obama's compromise, which he announced Friday, would essentially allow employers who object to contraception on religious grounds to usher employees into side deals with insurance companies, freeing religiously affiliated organizations from having to directly provide birth control coverage themselves. Will this satisfy the president's critics?

This supposed accomodation is "unacceptable": "There's a simple principle in Catholic moral theology," says Tom Crowe at Catholic Vote: "If you materially support another's grave sin and facilitate it knowingly, you are also guilty of the grave sin." What's the difference between requiring religious institutions to tell employees where to find contraception and having employers dish out the contraceptives themselves? Either way, the government is forcing Catholics  to "support gravely immoral activity." This remains "a violation of the freedom of religion."
"Compromise or accomodation, it's still unacceptable"

C'mon. This is a legitimate compromise: Look, says Scott Lemieux at The American Prospect. Obama's supporters should be happy: "Employees will still be able to receive contraceptive coverage at no extra cost." And the Catholic Hospital Association, for one, is "very pleased" with the religious exemption, saying that it "protects the religious liberty and conscience rights of Catholic institutions." It's only the "intransigent bishops" who aren't on board. The rest of us can see that this is a fair deal.
"Birth control chess"

But who's going to pay for this? There's a big catch here, says Sarah Kliff at The Washington Post. The White House claims this is "a good deal for insurance companies," since over the long haul, covering contraceptives lowers the rate of expensive pregnancies, and thus becomes revenue neutral for insurers. But "there's a difference between 'revenue neutral' and 'free.'" It costs about $20 per person per year to cover contraceptives. "Unless drug manufacturers decide to start handing out free contraceptives, the money to buy them will have to come from somewhere." Obama's new rule puts the cost on insurers — who make their money from subscribers' premiums. It's hard to see how insurers won't pass on this new cost to the rest of us.
"The catch in Obama's contraceptives compromise"

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

Obama's birth control compromise: 'Still unacceptable'?

The president offers an olive branch on his new contraception law — but Catholic bishops aren't exactly thrilled by his overture Retreat! After weeks of criticism, the Obama administration is offering an "accommodation" to U.S. Catholic bishops and other critics of a new federal rule that requires religiously affiliated hospitals, charities, and universities to provide their employees insurance with copay-free contraception. Obama's compromise, which he announced Friday, would essentially allow employers who object to contraception on religious grounds to usher employees into side deals with insurance companies, freeing religiously affiliated organizations from having to directly provide birth control coverage themselves. Will this satisfy the president's critics?

This supposed accomodation is "unacceptable": "There's a simple principle in Catholic moral theology," says Tom Crowe at Catholic Vote: "If you materially support another's grave sin and facilitate it knowingly, you are also guilty of the grave sin." What's the difference between requiring religious institutions to tell employees where to find contraception and having employers dish out the contraceptives themselves? Either way, the government is forcing Catholics  to "support gravely immoral activity." This remains "a violation of the freedom of religion."
"Compromise or accomodation, it's still unacceptable"

C'mon. This is a legitimate compromise: Look, says Scott Lemieux at The American Prospect. Obama's supporters should be happy: "Employees will still be able to receive contraceptive coverage at no extra cost." And the Catholic Hospital Association, for one, is "very pleased" with the religious exemption, saying that it "protects the religious liberty and conscience rights of Catholic institutions." It's only the "intransigent bishops" who aren't on board. The rest of us can see that this is a fair deal.
"Birth control chess"

But who's going to pay for this? There's a big catch here, says Sarah Kliff at The Washington Post. The White House claims this is "a good deal for insurance companies," since over the long haul, covering contraceptives lowers the rate of expensive pregnancies, and thus becomes revenue neutral for insurers. But "there's a difference between 'revenue neutral' and 'free.'" It costs about $20 per person per year to cover contraceptives. "Unless drug manufacturers decide to start handing out free contraceptives, the money to buy them will have to come from somewhere." Obama's new rule puts the cost on insurers — who make their money from subscribers' premiums. It's hard to see how insurers won't pass on this new cost to the rest of us.
"The catch in Obama's contraceptives compromise"

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

Is America right to still hate Michael Vick?

According to an annual Forbes list of the country's most hated athletes, Americans still aren't ready to forgive the QB for his dogfighting scandal

Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Michael Vick is the country's most loathed sports star, at least according to Forbes' annual list of America's most disliked athletes. (Sixty percent of those surveyed dislike Vick.) Also on this year's list are Tiger Woods, LeBron James, Alex Rodriguez, former Mr. Kardashian Kris Humphries, Detroit Lions lineman Ndamukong Suh, and NASCAR's temperamental racer Kurt Busch. The electrifying Vick has already served time in federal prison over his role in an illegal underground dogfighting ring, and after returning to the NFL in 2010, Vick was honored as the league's comeback player of the year. Is it time for America to forgive him?

Real football fans have already forgiven Vick: Vick's past crime "still resonates with many Americans," says Jonathan Tamari at Philly.com. And "casual fans overwhelmingly still don't like him." But if you look closer, 60 percent of "hardcore" NFL fans actually like the Eagles QB. "Big football fans care more about his play than" his criminal past. And on the field, Vick is a star.
"Vick, TO among most disliked athletes"

But Vick's problems go beyond dogfighting: Vick made a "big splash" with his return in 2010, but he "underperformed in 2011," says Doug Farrar at Yahoo. Don't forget: Vick is getting older, and he's spent quite a bit of time on the injury list. Vick's mobile, fleet-footed style — which once made him one of the league's most exhilarating players — is finally "catching up to him," and has left him quite banged up. Is it any wonder Americans aren't enamored with him?
"Most disliked athlete? America still hasn't forgiven Michael Vick"

Vick isn't even the most interesting part of this list: The real shocker is Lions defensive lineman Ndamukong Suh, says Will Brinson at CBS Sports. "Suh's lack of popularity is a total 180-degree turn, as he was on the list of most popular athletes just four months ago." (Of course, that was before he stomped on an opposing player during a nationally televised game on Thanksgiving Day.) "Fortunately for Suh, an incident-free 2012 will go a long way towards cleaning up his image... Vick, who served actual prison time, as well as Tiger, who suffered through a public infidelity scandal... have a much higher hill to climb if they want to regain their popularity."
"Suh, Vick, Plax highlight most-disliked athletes"

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here