George Bush has been in office for seven and a half years. The first six years, the economy was fine.
A little over one year ago:
- Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
- Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
- The unemployment rate was 4.5%;
- The DOW JONES hit a record high--14,000 +
- American's were buying new cars, taking cruises, vacations o'seas, living large!...
- Consumer confidence has plummeted
- Gasoline jumped to over $4 a gallon!
- Unemployment is over 5% (a 10% increase)
- Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS, & prices are still dropping
- 1% of American homes are in foreclosure
- THE DOW dropped to another low-- 11,300 --$2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!
...AND WE SURE GOT IT!!!
Change that didn't work!!
In the late 1950s, most Cubans thought Cuba needed a change, and they were right. So when a young leader came along, every Cuban was at least receptive.
When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in. When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed. When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said, 'Praise the Lord.'
And when the young leader said, 'I will be for change and I'll bring you change,' everyone yelled, 'Viva Fidel!'
But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the executioner's guns went silent, the people's guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed. By the time everyone received their free education, it was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him. By the time the change was finally implemented, Cuba had been knocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status. By the time the change was over, more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes.
Luckily, in America we would never fall for a young leader who promised change without first asking, what change? How will you carry out this change? What will this change cost America?
Would we?
-----
I heard this on the radio this evening. Went looking for it, but couldn't find an author. I like the way he/she thinks nonetheless.
15 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The way you tell the difference is that you can't point to any actions linking the Dem's to the current state of the economy. And to say that they current troubles are the result of recent causes is questionable.
The second part where you compare Barack Obama and Fidel Castro seems to me to be a poor analogy. The circumstances of the United States are different from Cuba in the 1950's. Barack Obama has been very forthcoming about many of the plans and policies he hopes to enact. To my knowledge there are no anecdotes of him being opposed to debate or contrary opinions. He is not waging a military campaign to seize control of the government.
As you said to me once, "Your kung fu is not strong enough."
How long do Democrats have to be in office before they are held accountable? Bush was in office for one day when Dems started blaming him for the recession like economy. Bush was only in office for 22 months when Sept 11th was blamed on him.
The Democrat party would shrivel up and go away if they had to live up to the standards that are placed on the Republican party. Then again higher standards and more accountability are probably the reasons why Republicans win so many more elections.
How about promising windfall profits taxes on energy companies? Do you suppose that might have had any effect on investment in energy companies, or the Dow-Jones?
Guess not.
How about the constant drumbeat in the media and by the democrat politicians about how awful the economy is thanks to President Bush, even though there isn't now, nor has there been a recession since he straightened out the one Clinton caused before Bush got there with his tax cuts, which the Dems promise to let die?
Do you suppose that might have had an effect on consumer confidence?
Probably not.
If we had had the Bush Presidency without the war, he would go down in history as the greatest president who ever held the office.
And to say that the current troubles are the result of recent causes may be questionable, but to lay the blame for the mess we find ourselves in at the feet of President Bush and John McCain is ludicrous.
And Obama espouses Castro-style socialism every time he opens his mouth, and has surrounded himself with the very crooks and embezzlers who are directly responsible for the crash and subsequent bailout of the Mortgage Market, which will cost the American taxpayers (the few of them who are left) by conservative estimate over a TRILLION dollars.
But I guess that doesn't bother you, does it Ben?
If the Democrats repealed the law of gravity, you still wouldn't float away.
And they can no more repeal the laws of economics than they can the law of gravity.
No matter how bad it hurts when someone falls.
This is what Democrat change looks like.
And we are just getting a little taste of it right now.
Barack Obama's boyhood heros were all dedicated to the overthrow of American Capitalism, and they never in their wildest dreams imagined that the little boy sitting in the corner listening to their poetry and soaking up their ideology would ever get this close to actually making it happen.
And the American Media and almost half of the American people are openly rooting for the downfall of our economic system, and blaming Republicans (who have been sounding the alarm for years) for the pain it is causing.
If pressed I'd label a lot of different people responsible. First any blame should originate in the mortgage industry which lobbied for relaxed rules and then took advantage of those rules to sell mortgages and home loans to huge numbers of people who were not financially able to support those commitments. Then the blame moves upstream to the banks and financial houses which bundled together bad mortgage securities with good mortgage securities to sell to investors and other stock and bond financial firms. Then the blame moves sideways to the companies that evaluate and price those bundled investment products, because many of them gave higher ratings or didn't even investigate the actual worth of the offered investments. And finally we end up at the biggest banks and investment firms on Wall Street which heavily invested in these dubious products and didn't plan sufficiently what they would do if these securities lost value. And insurance funds who also didn't adequately investigate these rotten products to see what their exposure was.
If anyone in government is to blame then I would have to say all the members of congress who over decades relaxed and water-down the rules regarding financial companies and transactions. I say again as I've said before. Capitalism is a great system for generating wealth, but it must be regulated to ensure fairness and equality. To make sure that all the players are playing fairly.
Personally I am not opposed to new nuclear energy reactors. I live within 50 miles of one. When younger I took school field trips to Farley Nuclear Plant. I see the news story where the Nuclear Regulatory Agency comes and inspects the Farley reactors every six months. So as long as there is adequate regulation and oversight I'm fine with more nuclear energy.
I'm fine with limited expansion of oil extraction. I think that the local populace should have a large say in whether an area is open for oil development. If Floridians aren't willing to trade sugar-sand beaches for more oil then that's that. I fully support states' rights when it comes to local and natural resources.
And you mentioned windfall profits tax on oil companies. This I am not in favor of. I think it is wrong to penalize an industry that is profitable as long as it is working honestly. If oil companies are artificially inflating prices then I am all for punitive fines. However if the industry is so profitable then they probably don't need all those government subsidies. Let's cut those out, or transfer them to the airline industry which needs the support.
So in conclusion don't portray me as a mirror of Barack Obama.
You told Eric that he was confusing causation with correlation, and I pointed out that he wasn't.
That was a clever attempt at history revision, but I remember when all this was coming about, and much of the banking industry loudly protested the regulations that forced them to issue these risky loans, but the Carter and Clinton Administrations forced the market to behave in ways that it never would have behaved.
No lending institution would have ever issued a loan of any kind to a person or business that everyone knew had no ability to pay the loan back,on property that was not worth the loan in the first place, and you know that.
Once these loans were issued and subsequently proved to be worthless, the rules were changed yet again to allow these loans to be bundled, packaged, and sold to the GSE's, to be backed by the American taxpayer.
And as these worthless loans and properties were made available, they were snapped up by these GSE's because they showed up as assetts on the books of these companies, and triggered massive bonuses for the heads of these corporations, who are now, incidentally, some of Obama's top financial advisors.
And in the case of the Mortgage crisis, these are not nameless, faceless boogeymen floating out there in the ether, we know the names.
Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, James Johnson, Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd, Barack Obama...
These are the people who were bought, and the people who did the buying that caused this all to happen, while the Bush Administration and John McCain shouted from the rooftops that it would happen, and were ignored and opposed by the very Democrats who were making it happen.
One of the main ways we can know that this is not a Republican scandal is the fact that there are no Democrats on television every single minute demanding investigations and criminal proceedings because of it. (Remember ENRON?)
I never expected you to lay the blame for the bailout scandal at anyone's feet, Ben, because if you did, you would have no choice but to admit that Democrats and Socialism, and specifically, the Obama mob is behind it all.
But we know who was behind it, whether you admit it or not...
It was Democrats and their obsession with "fairness" (by their definition), and their willingness to impose their idea of fairness by any means necessary. (And to help themselves to hundreds of thousands, and in some cases millions of dollars in the process.)
you see, there is a fundamental difference in the way that Democrats and Republicans view "regulation" of the free market.
Democrats want regulations that force the market to make bad loans, privatize profits and socialize losses, and make the market behave in ways that it normally never would. When it all goes wrong because of their meddling, they point and say "See! The "Free Market" doesn't work! It needs more of our meddling!"
Republicans want regulations that insure that the stated worth of a corporation is the actual worth of that corporation, that the balance on the books is the actual balance in the bank.
And I see no real, practical way to reconcile this difference.
In order for the Free Market to work the way it should, (the only way it WILL), it has to be left alone to make corrections, even if these corrections seem harsh or "unfair".
And I do not believe that there should be one thin dime of bailout money until Barack Obama's Economic Advisory Team gives back the one hundred and some odd million dollars that they personally took out of the companies that they, themselves ran into the ground, at taxpayer expense.
I, personally, am not in the least opposed to wind power, solar power, Ethanol, Hybrid cars, Electric cars, Hydrogen powered cars, cold fusion, nuclear powered cars, pedal power, hamsters in wheels, or pushing cars around with long poles held out the window, as long as it is efficient and the consumer wants it.
But for the moment, the only thing we have that will power what we've got, is oil.
And we need lots of it.
If it is possible to get it without buying it from overseas, then I do not see the logic in punishing ourselves and surrendering our national treasure, soveriegnty, or security by buying it from anywhere or anyone else.
At over a hundred dollars a barrel, a lot of things become practical that may not have been before, and to block domestic production bureaucratically seems insane to me.
By all means, lets work on Alternative Energy Sources, but don't choke of the supply of the only thing that works right now before we perfect the other stuff.
When the viable alternative to oil comes along, the market will switch right over to that ALL BY ITSELF.
The same way that the market switched from horses to horseless carriages back in the day.
And the more the government stays out of it, the faster it will happen.
We don't see enough of you here, Tug.
I'm a little busy these days...
I stop by when I can...
"remember when all this was coming about, and much of the banking industry loudly protested the regulations that forced them to issue these risky loans, but the Carter and Clinton Administrations forced the market to behave in ways that it never would have behaved.
So laws passed in the Carter and Clinton administration built a crisis that didn't materialize until now? The people who first got home loans under the CRA are now finishing paying off their homes. But you can easily substantiate this claim by pointing to the specific rule changes or regulations that caused an upsurge in the number of sub-prime loans banks and mortgage companies were FORCED to take. Try to limit your references to within the last ten years if you want me to think your serious.
---
"while the Bush Administration and John McCain shouted from the rooftops that it would happen, and were ignored and opposed by the very Democrats who were making it happen."
This should be an easy claim for you to substantiate. Find me a speech of George Bush's or John McCain's from last year or earlier where they warn of deceptive lenders or rot in the home mortgage industry. Or an article, editorial, participation in a forum, draft of legislation. Because what I remember is George Bush's 2004 GOP convention speech where he talked about an ownership society. And John McCain's continued use of the phrase, "the fundamentals of our economy are strong." Even after the treasury had to start bailing out financial giants.
---
"Democrats want regulations that force the market to make bad loans, privatize profits and socialize losses, and make the market behave in ways that it normally never would."
I just don't know how to reconcile this worldview to what I perceive. I look at the list and I think of Henry Paulson coming to Congress to "socialize the losses" of Wall Street. Mr. Paulson is the Treasury Secretary. He's a republican. From the White House. Do you think Democrats put him up to it?
I think about all the left-wing groups railing about executive compensation for years. The unions fighting for better worker benefits and compensation at the loss of executives. Are unions a front for the GOP?
I simply don't know what examples you had in mind when you made that list.
---
"And I do not believe that there should be one thin dime of bailout money until Barack Obama's Economic Advisory Team gives back the one hundred and some odd million dollars..."
You know that the McCain campaign is rife with finance and mortgage lobbyists and consultants too? Are you demanding they return the funds they received? McCain campaign manager Rick Davis's lobbying shop has received $15,000 per month since 2005 from Fannie Mae just because of the possibility that John McCain might run for president. They wanted that access. So let's not be pot and kettle eh?
In order for American oil exploration to be used domestically then the U.S. Government would have to effectively nationalize or take over the country's oil companies. Is that what you're suggesting?
Private corporations drill for oil in places that they have bought exploration leases. Then they sell that oil on an international market. If China is paying more for barrels of oil the crude from Alaska will be shipped to China.
This idea that opening the closed lands to exploration will flood the American market with crude and drop prices is false. Anyone that tries to sell you that idea is treating you like a child. Not giving you the information you need to understand the whole problem.
American companies can become world energy leaders by developing and patenting the new technologies to solve the world's dependence on fossil fuels. And the federal government can spur that development, through various regulations and incentives. Such technological developments will enhance not only America's economic security, but also our national security.
That is another of the reasons why I am very lukewarm about additional domestic oil exploration. If the press of public opinion requires additional exploration, then the federal government should double the lease costs for newly opened lands, and those monies should go to subsidies and universities to research new energy technologies.
As I said to EL the other day. America no longer manufactures tangible goods. Our strength is now from intangibles. No country sees Hollywood, CA as a major militaristic threat, but the ideas we create and export from there shape global opinion. The research we still do at America's universities are licensed at manufacturing facilities all over the world.
The folks who made 90+ million dollars based on what is alraedy being described as Enron type accounting practices. Fannie/Freddie overstated assets so that Raines etc would collect bonuses. The fact that these guys are still part of BHO's advisory team, and that BHO has not suggested that the give back the $$$ speaks volumes. Not to mention the fact that BHO is #2 in donations from F/F behind Dodd (D) (I think). Will he be returning the donations. Wall street gives much mor to dems than reps. If the bailout happens Soros and Buffet (both huge democrat supporters) are already positioning themselves to make a killing.
In 2005 McCain co sponsored a bill that had the potential to forstall some or all of what is happening now. Who kept it from getting out of committe Dodd. Who stopped it from being brought up on the floor Pelosi/Reed.
If you want to play the give the $$ back game fine. Like it or not that what lobbbyists do. In this case you can't ignore where they have been giving.
Two things:
Gas prices dipped down when Bush lifted the presidential moratorium on drilling. Prices then began to ease back up. I've noticed another drop in my area and then hear that Congress is about to, if they have not already, lift their restrictions as well. The point of the all this is what is happening NOW and that would be what we are seeing in cost per gallon at the pump. Opening up more areas for drilling has an effect on petrol prices even before the first drop is extracted. It's like crop prices rising or falling with reports of weather changes in the coming year. Personally, I doubt it will take ten years to see oil from new drilling, as companies will be hustling to extract it now that they have the green light. In the meantime, no other energy source is viable in a shorter period of time.
Secondly, I keep hearing about deceptive lenders, but equally guilty, and likely more common, are deceptive borrowers. A Michelle Malkin article of about six months ago spoke of as much as 70% of mortgage applications had some fraudulent info, primarily income statements. I've seen other sources, but hers is the only one I recall by name, mostly because she's babe-alicious.
Educate yourself a little bit, and then we'll talk.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ibd/080925/general01.html?.v=1
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/09/20080919-15.html
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190#sMonofilemx003Ammx002Fmmx002Fmmx002Fmhomemx002Fmgovtrackmx002Fmdatamx002Fmusmx002Fm109mx002Fmcrmx002Fms20060525-16.xmlElementm0m0m0m
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_hassett&sid=aKXUPbwOIOHY
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=304557829281016
If that isn't enough, I will post more later.