A fine president, an untrustworthy Congress

Home » Opinion » Letters To The Editor

Friday, November 06, 2009

Comment

Dear editor, I am happy to learn that the president of my country has won the Nobel Peace Prize. And I think he deserves it because he is doing a great job as leader of the U.S.A. in the executive branch of our government, executing all the laws made by our legislative branch of government and enforced by our judicial branch (of Supreme Court justices).

And I think he is doing a great job as a leader by trying to get the lawmakers in Congress to pass laws to make us all better. But, I also think that there are many members of our Congress who have gotten into office when we had other presidents and who refuse to adopt new laws recommended by this president. I think many of these representatives of we, the people of the country, are really acting on behalf of some very rich and powerful private citizens (and even some foreigners) who control or have lots of interest in businesses like health insurance, energy production and providing materials and services for our military and defense of our country, etc., and so keep themselves and their cohorts in positions of power and wealth by telling us a lot of lies and voting against common-sense laws the president would like to see enacted so he can enforce them for the benefit of all us citizens.

I also think that people in the world outside America know all this more than many of us Americans do. And, while I believe in the plans of this president, I am still glad that he isn’t a king or a dictator like in some places, and has been elected according to our laws, unlike the previous leaders and their pals who tried to mess up our way of governing ourselves and seemed to think that if they could, they would somehow rule the world.

Bruce Malkson / Napa

101 comment(s)

kevin wrote on Nov 6, 2009 5:03 AM:

" Doing "a great job"?

You're setting your level of expectations a little on the low side there Bruce.

Our budget deficit is THREE TIMES that of President Bush.

Our national debt is at levels not seen since WWII.

The dollar continues to fall in value.

Unemployment is approaching double digits (and is already there for California) despite the TRILLIONS of dollars wasted on bogus "stimulus" programs.

The federal government continues giving BILLIONS of our tax dollars to poorly run companies that STILL go bankrupt.

B.O. has taken control of the auto and finance industry and is in the process of taking over the insurance industry.

B.O.'s effort to expand government control over our health care and eliminate private insurance is the greatest single threat our country has ever faced.

B.O. continues to dither instead of making a decision regarding our troops Afghanistan; despite his own general's recommendations to increase troop levels.

Read a little history Bruce. It might raise your bar a little... "

athought wrote on Nov 6, 2009 6:43 AM:

" I am not sure that "doing a great job" qualifies someone for the Nobel Peace Prize. "

Raven wrote on Nov 6, 2009 7:14 AM:

" as for as the deficit- give bush the credit for his part of the deficit for this year, it was his administration that asked for and got the TARP funding after all (and it was projected to be a record deficit even if McCain had won) and the national debt was more than doubled under the Bush administration....from 5.8 trillion to almost 11 trillion. (forgot that in the history books did ya?)

the dollar will rea8in its strentgh as the economy starts to pull out of the depression we have been/are in....it weakness is a temporary thing, again, one the policies of the bush admin was to support a weak dollar, not a strong one....see this article from business week (that bastion of liberal fiscal policy) in 2005..

The Bush Administration is failing on three counts: First, mounting budget deficits increase the need for foreign borrowing and add to pressure on the dollar. Second, not having a serious energy policy intensifies U.S. dependence on imported oil and widens the trade deficit. And third, the Administration isn't even attempting to manage the dollar's decline, relying instead on the whims of money markets.....

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_11/b3924034_mz007.htm

as for the auto industry let us see...since Obama 'took' control .. Ford had a profitable quarter, GM stabilized itself and is, according to analysts much stronger than last year when it when hat in hand to ask for federal aid...and Chrysler is even making signs of improvement..course since most of the manufacturers in the US didn't ask for federal help, like Ford for example, who had the advantage of a 23.6 billion line of credit taken out in 2006, something no bank was willing to give last fall, hard to see where Obama has controlled the auto industry isn't it? "

antipc wrote on Nov 6, 2009 7:14 AM:

" You're in for a huge disappointment if you think that any president is going to make all of our problems disappear.

The reason there is so much resistance toward this president & his policies is that his ideas about what to change & how to change them are bad for the country.

If there's any such thing as a savior, rest assured, it's not BHO. "

krusty wrote on Nov 6, 2009 7:48 AM:

" I can always count on you, Kevin when I need a good laugh. "

O/U now wrote on Nov 6, 2009 7:56 AM:

" No need for any more comments, Kevin has said it all. "

fmmt47 wrote on Nov 6, 2009 8:14 AM:

" I don't understand how one could be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize while supporting the waging of war on two countries. Gee, aren't the bankers that Obama bailed out with billions of our hard earned tax dollars "rich and powerful citizens"?. How old are you anyway? "

freeport56 wrote on Nov 6, 2009 9:48 AM:

" Barry-
Ha, ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha! What a joke. "

Mr4 wrote on Nov 6, 2009 10:15 AM:

" Hey, Bruce,

Forget about the Nobel Prize - look what your fearless leader has been doing with his golf game!

http://bitsandpieces.us/2009/10/25/2010-masters-golf-tournament-cancelled/ "

PlasticPinkFlamingo wrote on Nov 6, 2009 10:51 AM:

" So much wrong in that letter, but this stands out: "so he can enforce them for the benefit of all us citizens". He wants government guns pointed at citizens to pay for socialism.

raven: "The Bush Administration is failing on three counts". Someone tell raven that the Bush administration is gone now. As for raven's incorrect statements about the auto industry, I'll answer that in another post.

The deficit under Obama will grow in one year more than the 8 years of Bush (including 2 wars and Katrina). The Democrats have majorities in Congress so Republicans could not have passed the deficit-bulging bills. Obama and the Democrats demanded the first bailout before Bush left office. They passed it - they own it. No amount of diversionary propaganda can cover it up. Why can't the Democrats stand up and say "yes we did this"? They aren't fooling anyone.

I marvel at the Obama apologists who respond with "well Bush did it" as their defense for yet another Obama mistake. Didn't Obama run on change? Lots of voters got tricked into voting for Obama based on the word "change". So if Obama got elected on the mirage of change, then why are you citing Bush as a cover when Obama breaks yet another campaign promise?

The Democrats' problem is that Obama has done very little - he provides no leadership and has shamed us in front of the world by continuously apologizing. China and Europe are not impressed, their leaders lecture Obama every time he tries to lecture them. And has Europe stepped up to help in Afghanistan? For that matter, where is Obama on Afghanistan?

Obama's only change is lack of leadership. Which is fine with me, considering his far left agenda. "

Mr4 wrote on Nov 6, 2009 12:23 PM:

" Well, Bruce,

Unemployment is now at 10.2% - 17.5% if you include those who have simply given up looking for jobs. The worst in more than a quarter of a Century.

How is that Hope and Change working out for you? "

Hear Ye wrote on Nov 6, 2009 12:32 PM:

" The unemployment is at Reagan levels now. That is scary! "

kevin wrote on Nov 6, 2009 2:28 PM:

" The difference Hear Ye is that, unlike B.O., President Reagan had a PLAN to reduce unemployment.

A plan that worked! "

Mr4 wrote on Nov 6, 2009 2:46 PM:

" You're right, it is scary!

Because Obama got us to that horrible unemployment rate without having to battle the 12% inflation and >16% mortgage interest rates left by Carter.

And btw, we calculate unemployment differently today than we did in 1983. In 1994 (under Clinton) the Bureau of Labor Statistics began excluding more unemployed from the official unemployment rate (U-6 versus U-7).

http://www.usnews.com/money/business-economy/articles/2009/08/27/is-unemployment-the-worst-since-the-great-depression.html

This means that today's real unemployment rate (17.5%) has already exceeded the peak unemployment rate of the 1982-83 recession.

And Obama said he's just getting started! "

Hear Ye wrote on Nov 6, 2009 3:18 PM:

" It took Reagan 3 years to stop the unemployment slide. I guess since Obama isn't the conservatives prophet then he only gets 10 months to clean up after the previous administration. "

PlasticPinkFlamingo wrote on Nov 6, 2009 3:50 PM:

" Reagan inheirited the high unemployment from Carter.

Oh yes those magic Carter years - wild inflation, 20% mortgage interest rates, squirrels attacking the president (where was the Secret Service when the squirrels were running amok?), the US made a fool of by Iran (some things haven't changed, have they?). Are we re-living the Carter years again? Will disco make a comeback? Will we have another Democrat one-term president who will fade into obscurity, occasionally come out to make some wild statement and then go back to obscurity?

There is always hope. "

glenroy wrote on Nov 6, 2009 3:54 PM:

" This letter is ‘text book blame game’ dysfunctional liberalism …..politically there is not the slightest difference between congressional leadership and this 'president.' "

Mr4 wrote on Nov 6, 2009 4:06 PM:

" This isn't a petty republican versus democrat game.

There is a major qualitative difference, Here Ye.

Jobs come from the private sector. And President Reagan worked diligently and fought against Congress to support the private sector - eventually cutting unemployment in half and growing the economy.

The current president and Congress are openly at war against the American private sector -eliminating it where they can and, at a minimum, trying to micro-manage it.

That is why employers are not hiring. And until that changes the only jobs that will be created under this administration will be overseas. Corporate globalization is here to stay - and since the United States is becoming a hostile environment in which to do business, business (and jobs) will go elsewhere. "

Hear Ye wrote on Nov 6, 2009 4:40 PM:

" You can slice it anyway you want but 10 months is not sufficient time to turn around an economy. Even Reagan proved that.

So in a sense it is a petty political game. It's kind of like how many of the rightists on here would happily post the daily stock market dip and tell us how Obama is failing based on it. They would also be sure to tell us that this was the big indicator on how the economy is doing. Then all of a sudden you never hear a peep from them 'cause now it has recovered quite a bit. So for them it's on to the next thing they can make a fuss about all the while pretending like the stock market never really mattered. "

Mr4 wrote on Nov 6, 2009 4:45 PM:

" Buy hey, Bruce, you should be happy.

Obama insider Warren Buffet reported that his Berkshire Hathaway profits tripled from gaming the market!

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a84Iu2z0INAU "

freeport56 wrote on Nov 6, 2009 6:05 PM:

" Nice to know Barry's plan of emulating FDR is working perfectly! "

shareathought wrote on Nov 6, 2009 6:51 PM:

" Thank you Mr Malkson.
If you happen to read this comment page (but are not in the habit of reading it on a daily basis), please note, there are a half dozen writers that seem to only write negative things in response to most letters. Predictably, it became boring. Many who enjoyed debate or wrote "thought-provoking" comments in the past, no longer use this site. "

antipc wrote on Nov 6, 2009 7:03 PM:

" Hear Ye, the stock market used to be a window into the future. Government did not even attempt to reign in capitalism.

This is a new era, where the liberals are abusing capitalism to pay for pet projects doomed to failure before even getting off the ground.

Corporations will not stand for being a cash cow for the feds & states while being vilified. They will move.

Where are the manufacturing & industrial jobs today as compared to 50 years ago? That's right, Chinese steel on the Bay Bridge.

Oh yeah, don't forget to thank the enviros for a huge portion of that exodus. "

Old Time Napkin wrote on Nov 6, 2009 7:33 PM:

" Actually it looks like B.O.'s plan is emulating Carter. Iran is thumbing their nose at us just like they did with Carter. While B.O. fiddles Iran just keeps ramping up the nukes. He's made no decision on troops for Afghanistan, no decision on stopping the nuclear proliferation, and no plan to get our economy moving. Looks to me like he is still voting "present" on all these issues. A total "empty suit". "

Raven wrote on Nov 6, 2009 10:25 PM:

" uhmmm, PPF if you read the post you would have seen it was a quote from and article about Bush from 2005 (and maybe you should tell that same thing to all who blame Clinton for everything)

"The deficit under Obama will grow in one year more than the 8 years of Bush (including 2 wars and Katrina)"

The national debt rose from 5.8 trillion to 10.6 trillion under bush....the deficit for the FY 2009 is projected to be 1.4 trillion.....I am no math whiz but that is less that 4.8 trillion...and one more lil tidbit, when Reagan took office in 1981, the national debt stood at $995 billion. Twelve years later, by the end of George H.W. Bush's presidency, it had exploded to $4 trillion. By 2000, Clinton's last year, the surplus amounted to $236 billion and CBO projections estimated a 5.6 trillion surplus by 2010.

"...the stock market used to be a window into the future...." and why isnt it now, anti? (closed at 10023 today, up from 7949 on Jan 20..a rise of about 25 percent)

and please, correct me about the auto industry "

cubs1969 wrote on Nov 7, 2009 7:07 AM:

" I believe the author of this piece believes what he's writing but is blinded by the image of Obama that was constructed during the campaign. He's also unwilling to look at the actual actions of the president since he took office. If you look at reality, you think of the curtain being pulled back on the Wizard of Oz or "The Emperor Has No Clothes".

There has been comparison in this thread between Reagan and Obama. I encourage people to read this article about Obama's unbelievable address after the shootings at Fort Hood. Leadership? Give me Reagan any day.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/obamas_delayed_empathy_over_fo.html "

kevin wrote on Nov 7, 2009 8:53 AM:

" Excellent link, Cubs.

That is a scary video!

Even President Bush on his worst day, wouldn't be so disjointed, unfocused and rambling as B.O. is in that video.

On top of everything else, Dr Crow NEVER received the Medal of Honor that B.O. mentions in his "shout out"... "

glenroy wrote on Nov 7, 2009 9:35 AM:

" A few of the posters understand the core of the issue….if the economy turns around it will have nothing to do with obama policies because government cannot create... it consumes. Maggie Thatcher often said, “the problem with leftist governments is what to do when they run out of other peoples money to spend?”

Reid/Pelosi/Obama etc are philosophically committed on creating a larger percentage of public dependency on government aid/jobs, which is the core of their base. The ‘left’ can’t compete on accomplishment….all that any of them have done over the last 40 years is spend more, waste more and become filthy rich doing so….

Take a brief moment to look at the state of our country…we are massively dependant on foreign energy, our manufacturing base is all but gone, our economy was ruined by Democrat/Freddie/Fannie mismanagement, the dollar may soon be replaced... which will double energy costs at current exchange rates…all the while Democrat special interests are ripping off billions from obama‘s faux stimulus….

…. The Founders knew the greatest threat to a Republic would come from within by career politicians whose only skills would amount to being a ‘better liar’…..which leads to our finest President’s most famous quote…”you can fool all the people some of the time… some of the people all the time…but you can’t fool all the people all the time.” "

wyngyrl wrote on Nov 7, 2009 9:43 AM:

" Conservative peeps: Ronald Reagan died several years ago. He is not coming back. The 1950's are not coming back. The US industrial power and manufacturing jobs are probably not coming back. The victories of WWII are not coming back. The world has changed. Get over it and start accepting the possibility of new ideas. "

cubs1969 wrote on Nov 7, 2009 11:08 AM:

" wyngyrl,

Obama's new ideas aren't working. He promised that, with $787 BILLION of stimulus spending, unemployment would hit a ceiling of 8 percent. It's at 10.2% and climbing. He's off 27.5 % in just a few months. What does that portend for the massive health care package being debated at the moment? His numbers will be way off here as well.

We've got new ideas from a guy that has never held a private sector job in his life and is tinkering with the economy. Scary! "

anticommie wrote on Nov 7, 2009 12:33 PM:

" raven wrote:

"as for the auto industry let us see...since Obama 'took' control .. Ford had a profitable quarter"

Ford didn't take bailout money. "

anticommie wrote on Nov 7, 2009 12:38 PM:

" Hear Ye wrote on Nov 6, 2009 4:40 PM:

" You can slice it anyway you want but 10 months is not sufficient time to turn around an economy. Even Reagan proved that."

Wasnt Obama's main selling point on the stimulus was that if the funds were made available unemployment wouldn't go above 8%. These were HIS words not mine. Dont tell me where to find this speech, I'm tired of doing homework for the lefties. Find it yourselves this time. "

anticommie wrote on Nov 7, 2009 12:45 PM:

" "Dear editor, I am happy to learn that the president of my country has won the Nobel Peace Prize. And I think he deserves it because he is doing a great job as leader of the U.S.A. in the executive branch of our government, executing all the laws made by our legislative branch of government and enforced by our judicial branch (of Supreme Court justices)."

So in your eyes Bruce, Obama just being president earned him the right to recieve the Nobel? Wow. Actually didn't The admin come out and say that they will NOT be inforcing laws against marijuana? Is that enforcing the laws of the land? Those are laws passed by the legislation.

And your argument about the people in power and their wealthy constituants, the Obama Admin is just as guilty as the rest. He has appointed lobbyists to posts in his admin, just lobbyists on his side. Obama himself was a lawyer for a powerful lobbying group: remember ACORN? This liberal agenda in both the Executive and Legislative Branches of this government are fundamentally transforming this country into a state of entitlements and handouts aka Socialism. It is sad you welcome it with arms open, or should I say, hands out. "

Raven wrote on Nov 7, 2009 1:25 PM:

" so what exactly is a private sector job?... it it the company or the source of the funds for that job? "

anticommie wrote on Nov 7, 2009 2:56 PM:

" Raven:

Do you really need an answer to that question? Come on! "

Raven wrote on Nov 7, 2009 4:56 PM:

" where to begin..

well, if it is the source of funding that defines it, then any private company that receives a govt contract is not providing private sector jobs...if it is simply that the jobs are not in a govt agency, then this statement "guy that has never held a private sector job in his life" isn't worth the pixels it is displayed on....so which is it..?

As for the Nobel, it wasn't our choice ..so why not take it up with the Nobel committee that made the decision...

The point of the stim was to try and keep it from going above 8 and to hopefully move it in the other direction. There were no guarantees made, and as I recall the stimulus package as passed was smaller than original intended so one could argue that had it been the original amount, then perhaps the rate would have stayed.....no one can say for sure...

Regarding MJ, the policy is that if the user is complying with state law, the Feds wouldn't prosecute....a definite move to getting the Feds out of our lives, is'nt that a good thing, anti?

I never said Ford took any bailout money...I made a point of saying Ford didn't need to becuase they had obtained an line of credit in 2006 that enabled to them to have the financing they needed to do business...and if they didn't take fed money, how did the feds 'control' the industry, esp since only two companies out of how many actually took fed funds, with conditions for giving the funds, just like a bank does when it makes a loan. "

cubs1969 wrote on Nov 7, 2009 5:10 PM:

" Raven,

It appears to me, like our president, you have never held a private sector job. Try running your own business, working for someone who does, meeting payrolls, etc., then you'll understand how out of touch BO is. "

Hear Ye wrote on Nov 7, 2009 8:09 PM:

" Lol @ anticommie, you're getting an attitude about a question that was never asked? Gee I'm so sad you won't be doing "homework" for "lefties" anymore, not that you ever had. "

Raven wrote on Nov 7, 2009 10:33 PM:

" well with the exception of 13 years in the USAF nothing but private sector jobs...(to put that in perspective I am 56 and my first job as at 14 caddying (and i am running my own business now....;-) )

you want to try and answer my question, cubs...how do you define a private sector job? "

cubs1969 wrote on Nov 8, 2009 7:02 AM:

" Raven,

This definition from businessdictionary.com sums it up pretty well..."private sector - Part of national economy made up of, and resources owned by, private enterprises. It includes the personal sector (households) and corporate sector (firms), and is responsible for allocating most of the resources within an economy" - at least it was until January 20 of this year. "

glenroy wrote on Nov 8, 2009 7:05 AM:

" Private sector job....gee raven as a business owner you should know the difference... "

cubs1969 wrote on Nov 8, 2009 9:25 AM:

" Raven,

Napa Valley College has a class, Econ 100 - Principles of Macroeconomics. Here's the syllabus http://www.napavalley.edu/people/sbalassi/Documents/NVC%20Econ%20100.pdf. This class should help with your confusion over the public versus private sector as well as with your business. "

Raven wrote on Nov 8, 2009 1:16 PM:

" I know the classic definitions, cubs, is it still valid? but again,you haven't answered the question...how do you define them? If a company receives a govt contract, public funds, doesn't that make those jobs defacto public sector jobs, since its source of funding is public funds, taxpayers dollars? "

Raven wrote on Nov 8, 2009 1:17 PM:

" and glenroy I receive no public dollars for my jobs so I am firmly private sector... "

cubs1969 wrote on Nov 8, 2009 5:31 PM:

" Raven,

I appreciate your USAF service and the risk that you took to start your own company. I suggest you take a basic economics class, though, to understand the difference between a public sector job and a private sector one. You just don't seem to get it. "

cubs1969 wrote on Nov 8, 2009 5:43 PM:

" Raven,

As long as the ownership, investment, and risk of a company is a non-government entity, even if they happen to sell to the government, it should be considered a private sector company. The company is providing a product or service that the bureaucracy of government cannot provide, and most likely, should not provide. Just like health care. "

Hear Ye wrote on Nov 8, 2009 7:33 PM:

" I think Raven is just having fun with the notion that you think Obama has never had a private sector job. "

Raven wrote on Nov 8, 2009 9:27 PM:

" thank you, hear ye.....it seems it was never going to get there..

But it does raise the question, with so much govt funding, does the classic definition still hold true? There are many firms, ostensibly private, where if the firm losse the govt contract, the firm will go belly up, the jobs disappear. So are they truly private sector jobs, they jobs disappear w/o the govt funds.

Look at the scramble each year for the defense budget spending. Look at the common defense put forward for keeping contracts for systems the defense dept says it no longer needs or wants - "if we lose that contract, we will have to let people go and the company may go bankrupt" This hppens across the 'private sector, at all levels of govt, I would bet there are private companies in Napa that would suffer greatly if they lost city, county or state contracts.

If this is the case, that the only way a company can exist, and the jobs that company provides, is through govt funding, I say they are not truly private sector jobs, in the classic definition of the phrase. And that maybe we need to redefine what private and public sector jobs are? "

PlasticPinkFlamingo wrote on Nov 9, 2009 8:35 AM:

" raven the government owns 70% of GM and that is by any measure enough to 'control'. And when a US president forces a chief executive to step down, what does that tell you about government control?

The so-called health of the auto industry for the last quarter only reflected the Cash for Clunkers fiasco - it would have been more surprising if the numbers didn't go up.

GM is a mere shadow of its former self and will likely have to turn to China for its auto production. Chrysler will be an importer of Italian cars by 2012. Within weeks of taking office, Obama took control and wrecked our auto industry and if we ever really need a strong manufacturing base, our auto industry would be helpless. This is what the left wants, it's one of their ways to reduce our country to second-class status.

Ford did not take bailout money and is the only US automaker to challenge the imports in quality ratings. But the unenlightened UAW is targeting Ford, refusing to give Ford the same contract terms they were forced to give GM and Chrysler. Reprehensible.

And let's not forget, the automakers were brought down by the Wall Street greed, fed by the economically unsound mortgages that Frank, Waters, Pelosi, Schumer and Obama forced mortgage lenders to give. No, the automakers weren't perfect, but the current debacle directly resulted from government interference in the markets.

But the government gave Fisker, the PT Barnum of the auto world (and a company with financial ties to Al Gore) a half billion dollars to produce a low price battery toy car. Their current car sells for $90K, the new 'low price' car is projected to sell for 'only' $50K. Wow! Our tax dollars at work! "

glenroy wrote on Nov 9, 2009 8:49 AM:

" Never said you did Raven…. And, if you had and it was done legally, unlike Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Murtha and Frank….it wouldn’t make any difference…would it?

How many employees? Legal employees? "

Raven wrote on Nov 9, 2009 1:04 PM:

" again PPF....GM and Chrysler compose how much of the auto industry? and the figures don't lie....the industry has stabilized for the moment. But with GM and Chrysler being minority players anymore...hard to say that the feds control the industry

"Frank, Waters, Pelosi, Schumer and Obama forced mortgage lenders to give..."

you and others keep tossing out this like it was the gospel but whenever you or they are asked for that smoking gun to support it.....nothing...not to the convenient amnesia about the GOP's role it the debacle.... so I will ask again..where is the evidence, the proof...

How many employees? Legal employees?...

One...and was that an implication I would hire illegal employee, glenroy? (and from the rest of your post I can see you missed the point as well...) "

Raven wrote on Nov 9, 2009 1:06 PM:

" "....it was done legally, unlike Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Murtha and Frank..."

btw...you have evidence any of these have illegally taken federals dollars?..any of them been tried and convicted of suych? "

cubs1969 wrote on Nov 9, 2009 5:23 PM:

" Raven,

I'm sure you'll roll your eyes and say this is from Fox News. But can Fox make Democrats' lips move. Judge for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM "

cubs1969 wrote on Nov 9, 2009 5:48 PM:

" Raven,

In your USAF service, were you stationed in West Berlin? I'm thinking that you maybe snuck over the border and took some East German Economics classes, based on your comments. Interesting give that is is the 20th anniversary of the failed socialist/communist policies of the USR.

You think not enough money was spent on the stimulus package? That government needs to invest more money, so that people don't lose their jobs? The private sector is the private sector. Investors/owners risk their capital to provide a product service to their customers (sometimes in the form of the inefficeient government who cannot provide a similar product service). They take a risk, as do their employees, to be a part of the private sector. If government decides that the product or service is no longer necessary, the firm needs to adjust/adapt and offer a different product or enter a different market. There are no guarantees, but under the Constitution, companies are able to make their case to our lawmakers, which they do.

Walmart warns their suppliers to not put too many of their eggs in the Walmart basket. Perhaps the government should as well? This country was founded and has thrived and, God willing, will continue to thrive as a capitalist system. I see you and our current administration advocating a direction that will constrain the capabilities and possibilities of the American people, as demonstrated by the failed socialist regimes of the past. "

Mr4 wrote on Nov 9, 2009 5:58 PM:

" What in the heck does Raven's semantic diversion about the defiition of "private sector" have to do with Bruce's letter?

Bruce wants to deify Obama. He says Obama is doing a great job. Fine. That is his right.

So let's get back to the point: Is Obama (and his subservient Congress) doing a good job?

Well, as we have seen, America is down more than 6 million jobs over the past year. That is not good news. Personally, I don't care how you label the jobs - private, pseudo public, whatever. It doesn't matter. So what is the current administration doing about it?

We already know that the current government is waging war on profit and private enterprise. Global companies are therefore moving more jobs out of the United States faster than ever before.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world is growing. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall twenty years ago today, the rest of the world has added 600,000,000 jobs related to the international export market. Yes, 600 million! They are growing their economies by embracing capitalist principles. They are laughing at us.

And now, the health care plan - a plan that will add enormous cost and complexity to American employers large and small. Since employers' costs will increase by government fiat, they have only two possible ways to react: 1) increase prices, causing inflation, reducing demand and crippling the economy further, or 2) keeping costs stable by reducing variable costs - that means cutting down the number of American employees. Either way, it spells disaster.

Is that so difficult to see? "

Mr4 wrote on Nov 9, 2009 8:06 PM:

" Q:

"...the stock market used to be a window into the future...." and why isnt it now, anti? (closed at 10023 today, up from 7949 on Jan 20..a rise of about 25 percent)

A:

1) Increasing foreign investment (they are getting saturated with buying Treasury bonds)

2) Expectations of increased inflation (since stock price is the market's guestimate of future cash flows, expected inflation raises stock price) "

PlasticPinkFlamingo wrote on Nov 9, 2009 8:56 PM:

" You want to argue how much of the auto industry GM and Chrysler represent? Amazing. They are two of the Big Three (actually the Big Two and A Half now). GM was drastically downsized by Obama's forced bankruptcy plan. GM was forced to get rid of Saturn (their best dealer network) which is amazing since they mostly sold fuel efficient cars yet there's no outcry from the left about it - of course there won't be, like Al Gore they give lip service to fuel economy but they are more interested in increasing their control. Chrysler is in grave danger of failing forever because of their brutal downsizing and shotgun marriage to a foreign automaker by government fiat (pun very much intended) and the amazingly poor product management plans that were just announced. They don't have a clue - Fiat doesn't understand the US market.

You totally ignored the fact that the bloated and expensive C for C program was what fed the temporary bump in profits. That does not begin to qualify as stabilizing the industry. Let's twist again . . .

As far as my comment about Frank, Waters, Schumer, Pelosi and Obama pushing the flawed mortgage programs, that's a matter of public record and I'm rather surprised you wish to challenge the statement. Check the Congressional record.

The fact that the Republicans didn't call the Democrats on it is to their eternal shame. Again you forget that I am not a Republican and I have repeatedly called for the Republican party to go the route of the dinosaur. They sold out their principles and deserve no respect as far as I'm concerned. Unfortunately they are, at this time, the only line of defense against Obama's socialism. "

Raven wrote on Nov 9, 2009 9:22 PM:

" no, PPF you made the assertions, it is incumbent upon you to back them up..unless you are saying in your opinion...and you are presenting it as fact, so where is the evidence you have to back it..

You cite Saturn....its sales had been sliding for years prior to GM's decision...

Year U.S. Sales % Change
2009 57,223* -59.2%
2008 188,004 -21.7%
2007 240,091 6.1%
2006 226,375 6.0%
2005 213,657 0.8%
2004 212,017 -21.8%
2003 271,157 -3.2%
2002 280,248 7.5%
2001 260,730 -4.1%
2000 271,800 16.9%
1999 232,570 0.3%
1998 231,786 -7.7%
1997 251,099 -9.9%
1996 278,574 -2.5%
1995 285,674 -0.1%
**1994 286,003 24.7%
1993 229,356 16.9%
1992 196,126 163.3%
1991 74,493 3860.3%
1990 1,881
(automotive news)
http://www.autonews.com/article/20091001/ANA01/909309971

mismanagement by GM? probably, but the point is people were not buying them, best dealer network or not...the missing part of your statement is that GM/Chrysler were the still the big three...

They were for a while the largest in the world and two of them are still a mainstay in the top five. Ford has held the position of second-ranked automaker for the previous 56 years, being relegated to third in North American sales, after being overtaken by Toyota in 2007. That year, Toyota produced more vehicles than GM, though GM still outsold Toyota that year, giving GM 77 consecutive calendar years of top sales. For the first quarter of 2008, however, Toyota overtook GM in sales as well. In the North American market, the Detroit automakers retained the top three spots, though their market share is dwindling. Honda passed Chrysler for the fourth spot in 2008 US sales. (thanks wiki)

so in overall sales, they are not the big three and haven't been for a while. "

cubs1969 wrote on Nov 10, 2009 11:23 AM:

" Raven,

You said Saturn sales have slid for years. They actually grew from 2005 to 2007 (review your own data). All other manufacuters' sales also contracted over the last year an a half.

You also asked PPF for a smoking gun - I gave you a smoking bazooka - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM. No response from you yet. "

Raven wrote on Nov 10, 2009 5:08 PM:

" and look after that cubs...dropped more than 21 percent and then 59 percent....

Smoking gun? more like a wet firecrackerl....where were these warning when the GOP had control...that was when the damage was done....notice the timeline, everything is fine until the GOP lose control...

and the request for the smoking gun is for the claim that Frank, Waters, Schumer, Pelosi and Obama ordered pushing the flawed mortgage programs....to borrow from you...no response yet. "

cubs1969 wrote on Nov 10, 2009 6:43 PM:

" Ostrich,

How did you divert this discussion to Saturn automobiles in the first place? It's interesting, however, that they had three years of success in a row until Nancy and Harry took control of Congress in 2006. Similarly, the US economy did as well. "

cubs1969 wrote on Nov 10, 2009 6:53 PM:

" Raven,

To quote your own words "everything is fine until the GOP lose control." I couldn't have said it better. Thanks for that mea culpa. "

cubs1969 wrote on Nov 10, 2009 6:57 PM:

" Raven,

When Saturn sales dropped 59% in 2009, who was the president? "

Raven wrote on Nov 11, 2009 9:55 AM:

" You want to show us what the congress did in that year to caused the drop? and the 27 percent in 2008, cubs? and 2002, 2004, 2005...(and maybe the fact that GM was in bankruptcy and had asked for bailout funds might have something to do with the drop in sales?...one thing that seems to be forgotten is the GM and Chrysler came to the govt asking for funds, not the reverse...even if you disagree with them being given funds, do you think they should have been given the money with no conditions whatsoever?

what the chart shows is the GM management mangled a perfectly good idea.....regardless of the president.

and while the ostrich is a noble member of the avian family, seems a lil childish to me, but ravens are known for heir perseverance and hardiness .. (btw take a look at the thread and see who brought up the auto industry in the first place.) "

anticommie wrote on Nov 11, 2009 10:11 AM:

" Raven:

Barney and the Dems are as much, if not more, to blame for the housing crisis. Listen to Barney Frank himself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPSDnGMzIdo

I kinda remeber when this was going on, and those on the left were saying that the Republicans were racists for trying to make aware the problems that eventually caused this recession, by the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. You all love to blame one person, Bush. I blame Bush too, and the Republicans, because they obviously didnt push hard enough to reform the issues. "

Raven wrote on Nov 11, 2009 1:21 PM:

" What I don't do is blame people without factual evidence anticommie....the linaty about Frank, Pelosi Reid etc...is tossed about time and time again and never is any evidence presented that any of them actually did what you and other have accused them of.. a congressman cannot order an federal agency to do anything, esp when the other party controls the Congress and the White ... has their been an investigation of them, has the been evidence presented to a committee and grand jury to anyone?

Is there blame enough to go round on both parties - sure...but stop saying they did anything illegal without the facts to back the accusation up...otherwise it is simply hyperbole and does more harm to your position than good. "

anticommie wrote on Nov 11, 2009 3:47 PM:

" Never said they did anything illegal raven.

Last time I checked Barney Frank was Chairman of the House Committe on Financial Services.

"The United States House Committee on Financial Services (also referred to as the House Banking Committee) oversees the entire financial services industry, including the securities, insurance, banking, and housing industries."

So dont you think that with Fannie and Freddie that the head of this committee would have known before the rest of us of any impending problems in the bank and housing industries? Dont you think that he has some leverage with these banks and the governmental regulations placed upon them? Dont you think that he knew that subprime loans were actually counter-productive to the rising home ownership in this country? Dont you think that he could have helped fix the problem before it started? Dont you think it was his job to inform the executive branch that has the power of inforcement to fix these problems? Did you watch the link I posted for you? The guy thought that every aspect of Fannie and Freddie were solid. These are HIS words, not mine. If you say that both sides are to blame (which I whole heartedly agree with) why is it I have ONLY seem you blame Bush? "

cubs1969 wrote on Nov 11, 2009 4:35 PM:

" Raven,

I have to point this out to you. It takes 60 votes to prevent a filibuster in the Senate. When the Republicans were in control of the Congress (both houses), I think the split was, at best, 52-48 Republican. The Democrats, as illustrated by the video clips that I and anticommie provided, showed that they were in lock step against any Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac reform, despite warnings of inaction from the Bush White House and Senator McCain. There was no way that the Democrats were going to approve regulation of these GSEs.

The Democrats now, unfortunately, have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. However, it appears that, despite that, they're not going to be able to heard all their cats and push through a government controlled health care system. Thank goodness! "

Mr4 wrote on Nov 11, 2009 5:19 PM:

" Spot on, cubs!

(But why the Cubs?) "

Raven wrote on Nov 11, 2009 6:30 PM:

" thanks for the civics lesson and can you, or Mr4, give me the names of the billls that the GOP introduced to reform them that were threatened by the filibuster...(or the ones in the house, since there is no filibuster))....quick answer- none...so the GOP was so afraid they didn't even dare introduce a bill to change either institution

btw this bill did pass the house...

may 27, 2007

The U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday passed a bill tightening federal oversight of Fannie Mae (FRE.N) and Freddie Mac (FNM.N), the nation's two largest purchasers and guarantors of home mortgages.

Under the legislation, a new, independent regulator would be created to oversee these mortgage giants, which have mortgage portfolios totaling more than $1.4 trillion.

Under the bill, HR 1427, a portion of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's profits would be set aside for an affordable housing fund. In the first year, the money would be earmarked for victims of hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

and in case you had forgotten that was under the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives) and in april of this year the house introduced a bill calling for a investigative commission on freddie and fannie....so many did the GOP house pass or even introduce calling for an investigation of the two? "

cubs1969 wrote on Nov 11, 2009 6:45 PM:

" Sponsor of the "reform" bill, none other than Barney Frank, the genius that said that Fannie and Freddie were solid as a rock. And Raven, did this ever get through undertaker Harry Reid's Senate? "

cubs1969 wrote on Nov 11, 2009 7:06 PM:

" Raven,

I thought you might like this article...

http://living-creatures.blogspot.com/2008/10/obamas-buddy-who-ruined-fannie-mae.html "

cubs1969 wrote on Nov 11, 2009 7:14 PM:

" Raven,

House Republicans seek new Fannie-Freddie probe

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE49K71Y20081021

Barney's efforts were simply an exercise in CYA. "

cubs1969 wrote on Nov 11, 2009 7:42 PM:

" Raven,

Glad to give you a civics lesson any time. My numbers refer to the Senate. Yes, I know, unfortunately, that Evita Pelosi does not have to worry about a filibuster in the House. "

cubs1969 wrote on Nov 11, 2009 8:10 PM:

" Raven,

President Bush, Fed Chairman Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Snow, Senator McCain, and other GOP folks called for Fannie/Freddie reforms for years (you obviously, STILL, have not watched the videos we provided). They were rebuffed at every turn by the Democrats, most notably Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer. Also, if you'll recall, it was Chuck Schumer's (D-NY) loose lips that started the panic about banks last year, leading to the collapse of IndyMac. Perhaps strategy for the 2008 elections - blame it on the Republicans?" "

cubs1969 wrote on Nov 11, 2009 8:31 PM:

" Raven,

As per this link, HR 1427 never became law. Barney and company putting on a show. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1427 "

anticommie wrote on Nov 12, 2009 6:57 AM:

" Raven wrote on Nov 11, 2009 6:30 PM:

"Under the legislation, a new, independent regulator would be created to oversee these mortgage giants, which have mortgage portfolios totaling more than $1.4 trillion.

Under the bill, HR 1427, a portion of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's profits would be set aside for an affordable housing fund. In the first year, the money would be earmarked for victims of hurricanes Katrina and Rita."

Wait, first they want to create a NEW beauacracy, then put in practice socialist style wealth redistribution by reallocating profits from Fannie and Freddie to low income housing? This sure makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. Again another bill passed by the house to overtake an entire industry in this country. That is not reform, that is governmental takeover. This bill has yet to pass the Senate, which hopefully it wont. How many different governmental "watchdogs" you all on the left need?

Here is a Republican bill for you Raven:

Senate Bill S. 190:
109th Congress

See
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190

Though this bill created a beauracracy it also eliminated another. Repubs did try in the past to fix the problems before a crisis hit, but as politicians do, Democrats wanted to wait until it looked like it was them that were the ones trying to fix the problem, thus giving them a platform to stand on. "

cubs1969 wrote on Nov 12, 2009 7:15 AM:

" Raven,

Senator John McCain proposed the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 and it was blocked by Democrats. The specifics of that bill "1/26/2005--Introduced. Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 to establish: (1) in lieu of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an independent Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Agency which shall have authority over the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac); and (2) the Federal Housing Enterprise Board. Sets forth operating, administrative, and regulatory provisions of the Agency, including provisions respecting: (1) assessment authority; (2) authority to limit nonmission-related assets; (3) minimum and critical capital levels; (4) risk-based capital test; (5) capital classifications and undercapitalized enterprises; (6) enforcement actions and penalties; (7) golden parachutes; and (8) reporting. Amends the Federal Home Loan Bank Act to establish the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation. Transfers the functions of the Office of Finance of the Federal Home Loan Banks to such Corporation. Excludes the Federal Home Loan Banks from certain securities reporting requirements. Abolishes the Federal Housing Finance Board." "

cubs1969 wrote on Nov 12, 2009 7:28 AM:

" Raven,

Republicans in the House sponsored and passed HR 1461 "The Federal Housing Reform Act of 2005", a full two years before Barney's bill. Again, Democrats in the Senate, shut down John McCain's efforts on his similar Senate proposal. The two biggest recipients of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac largesse in the Senate - Sen. Chris Dodd - D-CT and Senator Barack Obama - D-IL "

Raven wrote on Nov 12, 2009 8:04 AM:

" cubs...the GOP controlled the house, which has no filibuster...the number so bills the GOP introduced and passed were?

and the regulations were removed by bills introduced during which congress, cubs?...

I like your double standard though, democrats actually introduce a bill, GOP talk about it and yet the Democrats are the ones putting on a show....nice...(and 1427 never became law becuase of filibuster threats by - you guessed it- the GOP) "

cubs1969 wrote on Nov 12, 2009 9:10 AM:

" Raven,

I hope I've prepared the crow to your liking. Bon apetit! "

anticommie wrote on Nov 12, 2009 9:47 AM:

" Raven:

Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, Senate Bill.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190

Rewatch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPSDnGMzIdo "

cubs1969 wrote on Nov 12, 2009 1:08 PM:

" Raven,

Good old Barney voted against HR 1461 in 2005, because he was a little worried that it might go somewhere in the Senate. He "sponsored" and voted for HR 1427 in 2007 knowing that it would go nowhere in Undertaker Reid's Democrat controlled Senate. It reminds me of a certain scene from Casablanca. "

Raven wrote on Nov 12, 2009 2:23 PM:

" would go somewhere in the senate? that bill went to the GOP controlled committee and died....interesting that it didn't even get a vote from from the GOP controlled committee.

and with a final vote of 331 Ayes, 90 Nays....seems like at least one or Democrats voted for it, including Mike Thompson....

Never had an aversion to facts, cubs - just and aversion to presenting opinions as fact without supporting evidence (btw crow and ravens are two separate birds, cubs)

interesting section 128 in the bill though...

Requires each enterprise to establish an affordable housing fund to: (1) increase homeownership for extremely low- and very low-income families, (2) increase investment in housing in low-income areas and areas designated as qualified census tracts or an area of chronic economic distress; (3) increase and preserve the supply of rental and owner-occupied housing for extremely low- and very low-income families; and (4) increase investment in economic and community development in economically underserved areas...

sounds a lot like forcing banks to make loans...plus the $6 per person costs ..sounds like a new tax...(the $1,600,000,000 cost of the bill divided by the US population as done by the CBO)

anticommie...a fox video but not a smoking gun by any means "

cubs1969 wrote on Nov 12, 2009 2:40 PM:

" Raven,

Remember your civics lesson. The Democrats could and would have filibustered any Senate version of HR 1461. Chris Dodd and Barack Obama would have wanted those Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac contributions to keep rolling in. By the way, how's your dinner sitting? "

cubs1969 wrote on Nov 12, 2009 2:48 PM:

" Raven,

Your version of the "facts" seem a lot like opinion to me. So, touche. "

cubs1969 wrote on Nov 12, 2009 5:37 PM:

" Raven,

I know crows and ravens are different birds. In your lingo, just a little "avian" humor. I wouldn't want to suggest that you were being cannibalistic. "

Raven wrote on Nov 12, 2009 11:01 PM:

" can't be cannibalism since they are different species, cubs...

cubs, the GOP didn't even try to vote it out of committee, where they held a majority of the votes and it could not be filibustered. The bill was read twice and sent to the committee where it lay until the end of the session, do you honestly think the GOP wouldn't have loved to chance to make the Democrats look like they were supporting corruption in both organizations? Maybe it was the 1.6 billion cost of the bill?

So be it, life goes on. "

anticommie wrote on Nov 14, 2009 3:25 PM:

" Raven you on vacation? you usually step up and defend your stance on every issue, yet you havent on my last couple posts. Any thing? "

Raven wrote on Nov 14, 2009 4:55 PM:

" have you posted something new? "

Raven wrote on Nov 14, 2009 5:07 PM:

" my answers to cubs answers yours too anti..... "

anticommie wrote on Nov 16, 2009 1:28 PM:

" It is sad to see that you will dismiss the words out of Franks mouth. I guess it would have to be played on MSNBC for you to acknowledge the truth. I see you wont acknowledge that it wasn't only Bush that failed, but your beloved Democratic Party that is more to blame for the mess that this president and congress are making worse. And your dismissal is not an answer to the questions that I asked, but rather it is a way to avoid them. "

Raven wrote on Nov 16, 2009 8:27 PM:

" never said there wasn't enough blame to go around for both parties..but since the Bush admin and a GOP congress controlled two of the three branches of govt for the first 6 years .... and the GOP controlled senate couldn't even muster the votes to get a bill out of committee when they were the majority, I have yet to see where Demos are more to blame.. ..so be it...life goes on. "

anticommie wrote on Nov 17, 2009 6:29 PM:

" Raven Repubs never had a filibuster proof Senate to pass a partisan bill:

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm

Of course the Dems wouldn't have supported any reform before the collapse, there was nothing worth gaining for them if they supported anything that would have regulated mortgages to lower income people that shouldnt have qualified for a loan. Congress rarely cares what is good for the country Repub or Demo, they only care for the next vote and will do ANYTHING to get it. And there is nothing sugarcoated or politically attractive about telling low income people they dont qualify for a loan. They just rely on the corrupt organizations like ACORN to lobby for the kind of regulations that caused this collapse in the first place, and as we have found out, BOTH parties have taken money from this group, this president even worked for them! "

Raven wrote on Nov 17, 2009 9:39 PM:

" anticommie, there was plenty to gain for the GOP to be able to paint the Demos as opposing reform...they didn't even bother to vote the bill out of committee, where there was no filibuster and they had a clear majority...the GOP senate didn't even try that...that shows more about how much they wanted to enact reform as anything you can find... "

Gray1984 wrote on Nov 18, 2009 2:45 PM:

" WOW...

So...let me get this straight...

8 years of Bush result in...massive spending (budget surplus becomes a budget deficit; the bailout of the financial sector and auto industry...because YES, it DID happen under Bush...NOT Obama), an increase in the federal government's size (Department of Homeland Security anyone?), the federal government REALLY intrudes on the privacy of its citizens (The Patriot Act)...

and Obama is the crazy, dollar-spending socialist that wants to get rid of our freedoms???

WOW...

Don't get me wrong, I believe that the decision to go to war against Iraq was the right one albeit one that will be more accurately judged 20 years from now...not today...and that the Department of Homeland security was a necessary step in today's global environment....

Therefore, the Bush Administration was not completely on the wrong side of history....

Just like reform of our Healthcare system is necessary in order to push our country to the next level of modernity...

Nonetheless, we must always continue to deal with petty ideologues that are Republicans and Democrats before they are Americans.... "

Gray1984 wrote on Nov 18, 2009 2:49 PM:

" In addition...

the economy isnt necessarily in the hands of 1 man, 1 decision-maker...although it is judged as so...

You'd be surprised to find that many of those in policy-making decisions during the Reagan era are also in the Obama administration...

PAUL VOLCKER?!

Unless of course you get your news from Glenn Beck or Michael Moore... "

anticommie wrote on Nov 19, 2009 6:52 AM:

" Gray-

I never supported any kind of bailout to any business whatsoever, I believed they should have had the freedom to fail. Yes, I agree with you about the government spending that took place for the past eight years. The tax cuts that Bush was able to pass helped this country succeed to a level of economic levels never seen before. UNFORTUNETLY, they didnt cut the government spending that was nesessary to balance the budget, creating (at the time) record deficits. Obama and this Congress have created a 1.4 TRILLION dollar deficit for the 2010 budget which is about three times higher than the previous record, and they want to spend more? Tax more? Bailout more? Grow the government more? Take more of or freedoms away, i.e. governmental healthcare? Raise energy prices, i.e. cap and trade? "

Gray1984 wrote on Nov 19, 2009 9:36 AM:

" Really? The Financial sector should have had the freedom to fail? ...really?

It must be stated that some banks/financial institutions WERE allowed to fail...although the SYSTEM, as a whole, was not allowed to fail...thats the important part...

In the world of economics...some sectors/industries are, in fact, too big to fail. That is, the failure of such industries/sectors can cause so much social chaos that negative economic consequences are prolonged...sometimes....sometimes...government HAS to step in...

Even former President Bush and his administration recognized this...

Economics is a social science...not a hard science. We are not machines. What may work sometimes, may not work other times. Let us have the flexibility to adapt.

Kevin- Yes, Reagan's policies did lead to the creation of new jobs; an "economic recovery", but his policies also led to serious trade and budget deficits...By the end of Reagan's term the budget deficit was at 2.7 trillion dollars...

Why is this important? Because economic policies are shaped by the president's economic advisors (while taking into account the short-run POLITICAL objectives of the time with the LONG-RUN outcome in mind...)

"B.O.'s effort to expand government control over our health care and eliminate private insurance is the greatest single threat our country has ever faced." - Ok, Tom Tancredo....how is it the greatest single threat our country has ever faced?

Also...have the decency, no matter what the Democrats or liberals called president Bush, to address our President by his name...

His name is Barack Obama...not B.O. "

gray1984 wrote on Nov 19, 2009 9:40 AM:

" Really? The Financial sector should have had the freedom to fail? ...really?

It must be stated that some banks/financial institutions WERE allowed to fail...although the SYSTEM, as a whole, was not allowed to fail...thats the important part...

In the world of economics...some sectors/industries are, in fact, too big to fail. That is, the failure of such industries/sectors can cause so much social chaos that negative economic consequences are prolonged...sometimes....sometimes...government HAS to step in...

Even former President Bush and his administration recognized this...

Economics is a social science...not a hard science. We are not machines. What may work sometimes, may not work other times. Let us have the flexibility to adapt.

Kevin- Yes, Reagan's policies did lead to the creation of new jobs; an "economic recovery", but his policies also led to serious trade and budget deficits...By the end of Reagan's term the budget deficit was at 2.7 trillion dollars...

Why is this important? Because economic policies are shaped by the president's economic advisors (while taking into account the short-run POLITICAL objectives of the time with the LONG-RUN outcome in mind...). I would like to think that American leadership, as a whole...Republican or Democrat, in comparison to the leadership of other countries...is, in fact, more responsible and willing to make the necessary decisions (no matter how unpopular they may be) for our country...

"B.O.'s effort to expand government control over our health care and eliminate private insurance is the greatest single threat our country has ever faced." - Ok, Tom Tancredo....how is it the greatest single threat our country has ever faced?

Also...have the decency, no matter what the Democrats or liberals called president Bush, to address our President by his name...

His name is Barack Obama...not B.O. "

anticommie wrote on Nov 19, 2009 10:54 AM:

" So you agree with the takeover that the government gained through the bailouts? If there are industries that are too big to fail, when they fail you think government should takeover? Unfortunetly many people will take security over liberty, and when that happens Gray totalitarianism will flourish and take our freedoms away. But people say, "that could never happen in America." You even said that the Patriot Act "intrudes on the privacy of its citizens" didnt you? I agree with this. But the sad reality is that fascism can very easily happen in America, all it takes is for the people to let the government grow too big, which it is growing at record speed. As far as your last comment of B.O. those are his initials are they not? But his policies sure stink. "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: