With his speech yesterday in Kansas
When he says that a small government has never worked, what the bloody heck does he mean? Until the 1920's this government was tiny as it had to rely upon tariffs and other fees to fund it. Yet in the same time the country became a world power.
When the income tax was passed, that all changed. Now the government could continually increase the rates, reduce deductions, and give special favors to
This country was built on the backs of strong minded, independent individuals who saw an opportunity and exploited it to create the freest, most productive nation the world has ever seen. Some of these individuals came over on the Mayflower and some continue to come here to seek opportunity and make their fortune based on their own productivity, creativity and sweat.
To say that this country has not worked is an insult to all immigrants who have
Government is an impediment to progress. It creates nothing and only devours assets. President Obama has it entirely backwards and we should allow him to back right out of White House. He is an embarrassment and owes all of our ancestors an apology.
If this man gets re-elected, it will be the end of the American dream. It will be crushed under the weight of an over-bloated, intrusive, freedom crushing government. No longer will it be the land of opportunity, it will be just like the other Socialistic European countries that we are bailing out with our dollars. The problem is that there will be NO ONE to bail us out.
Wherever you stand on politics, this speech crossed the line into dogma completely foreign to the American experience. We cannot afford another four years of his lack of leadership.
Conservative Tom
Obama: Limited Gov't That Preserves Free Markets 'Doesn't Work. It Has Never Worked'
President Barack Obama speaking at Osawatomie High School in Osawatomia, Kan., on Dec. 6, 2011. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
(CNSNews.com) - In a speech delivered at Osawatomie High School in Osawatomie, Kansas, on Tuesday, President Barack Obama argued that while a limited government that preserves free markets "speaks to our rugged individualism" as Americans, such a system "doesn't work" and "has never worked" and that Americans must look to a more activist government that taxes more, spends more and regulates more if they want to preserve the middle class.
"'[T]here is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. 'The market will take care of everything,' they tell us," said Obama. "If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes--especially for the wealthy--our economy will grow stronger.
"Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers," Obama continued. "But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, well, that’s the price of liberty.
"Now, it’s a simple theory," said Obama. "And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That’s in America’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked.
"It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression," said Obama. "It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ‘50s and ‘60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade. I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory.
"Remember in those years, in 2001 and 2003, Congress passed two of the most expensive tax cuts for the wealthy in history," said Obama. "And what did it get us? The slowest job growth in half a century. Massive deficits that have made it much harder to pay for the investments that built this country and provided the basic security that helped millions of Americans reach and stay in the middle class==things like education and infrastructure, science and technology, Medicare and Social Security.
"Remember that in those same years, thanks to some of the same folks who are now running Congress, we had weak regulation, we had little oversight, and what did it get us?" said Obama. "Insurance companies that jacked up people’s premiums with impunity and denied care to patients who were sick, mortgage lenders that tricked families into buying homes they couldn’t afford, a financial sector where irresponsibility and lack of basic oversight nearly destroyed our entire economy.
"We simply cannot return to this brand of 'you’re on your own' economics if we’re serious about rebuilding the middle class in this country," said Obama.
To read the full speech as transcribed by the White House click here.
I mostly agree with you, but only up to a point -- banking regulations. Even Ayn Rand disciple Alan Greenspan -- in the wake of the destruction Wall Street perpetrated on the world -- reluctantly came to the conclusion that "financial markets are not self-regulating." It took him about 40 years to figure it out, but he got it!
ReplyDeleteAmong those who agree with me are the unlikely names of Adam Smith and Millton Friedman. When you have time, have a look at this paper…
ftp://snde.rutgers.edu/Rutgers/wp/2010-04.pdf
The Great Depression of 1929 and the Great Recession of 2008 were both caused primarily by inadequate regulation of the banking system in this country, and so will the next one. Obama can make all the fancy speeches he wants, but make no mistake about it, he will not back up his words with any serious attempt to regulate the derivative markets. The best he can do is ask them to return a mere pittance of the money they ripped off from all the rest of us. Nor will Republicans do anything to confront Wall Street. It makes me sick.. It is not so much that many of them truly believe anymore that financial markets are self-regulating, but rather that they are all captives and dependent on them for their political survival. As you said a couple weeks ago, there are no "patriots" left in Washington, D.C.
--David
David,
ReplyDeleteThe issue that you have forgotten is that it was the regulators who FORCED the banks to make the sub-prime loans to individuals who could not pay them back. Some went into default only months after being granted the loan.
If the lenders did not make these loans, they would have been downgraded and made to pay higher interest from the FED.
The start of this whole mess was the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter and re-inforced under the Clinton Administration. It required banks to not "red-line" areas. However, it became part of the grading system used by the regulators.
Please understand that I know human nature but this time we cannot blame the cause of the problem all on the banks. On the other hand, the Bush and Obama administrations bungled the "bank bailout" by not requiring them to work out these bad loans and to be evaluated on them. Less than 10% of the modifications requested have been approved and Bank of America is the worst of the bunch. So the banks have taken advantage of the people they loaned money to but only because the regulators blew it.
I swear we covered this already, so I will just give you the main points...
ReplyDelete1. The VAST majority of the toxic subprime loans were done by mortgage lenders NOT subject to CRA regulations or oversight. CountryWide is an example.
2. The banks that did make loans under CRA had a much LOWER default rate than lenders who were outside the CRA authority.
3. The mortgages were in their totality only about $400 billion in value. The mortgage-backed securities which the banks built on top of them were TRILLIONS of dollars and do not have a damn thing to do with CRA.
It was the derivatives, not the mortgages, that crashed the credit markets, not just in the U.S. but all over the world! That was caused by Wall Street banks. Congress and the regulators were the ENABLERS of Wall Street, but Wall Street banks were the primary ACTORS in the financial crisis.
There have been some very good books plus the congressional investigation report on the causes of the financial crisis. They all make the same points about the role of CRA and the Wall Street derivatives.
--David