Incidentally, in regard to CSA’s earlier statement–“get the government and its regulations out of our way”–I have a perfect example of how Republican-sponsored deregulation ushered in the economic meltdown that took place during the Bush Administration.
In 1999, Senator Phil Gramm (R-Texas) sponsored a bill to repeal most of the provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act, which had been enacted during the Roosevelt Administration. (After passage of this bill, President Bill Clinton signed this toxic action into law, and he needs to take some blame for this situation.) As a result of Senator Gramm’s bill, brokerage firms were allowed–for the first time in almost 60 years–to act as banks.
Fast forward to 2007-2008. The brokerage firms–acting as banks–brought about much of the financial collapse that took place, beginning in December, 2007.
Senator Gramm never saw a governmental regulation or restriction on the financial sector that he didn’t want to eliminate. Senator Gramm was one of the major players in the events leading to our current financial problems. Senator Gramm was also the chief financial advisor to the failed presidential campaign of John McCain. If McCain had been elected, we would probably be faced with a combination of Laissez-Faire “hands-off” policies and a further restriction of federal regulations governing the financial sector. In other words, Bernie Madoff and those of his ilk would LOVE what McCain and his economic henchman, Phil Gramm, would probably have done in response to the melt-down in our economy.
Get the government and its regulations out of our way? Those who lost their 401-k retirement assets would probably be the first to disagree with that sentiment.
“President Bush believed that his first priority was to prevent new attacks on American soil. He accomplished that goal.”
Yes, to prevent NEW attacks. Unfortunately, the slip-shod ways of Bush and his associates allowed the 9/11 attack to take place, and that is of record.
Who in his right mind would have believed that a briefing paper titled “Osama Bin Laden is determined to attack inside the US” was a report about Bin Laden’s past activities, rather than his intentions for the future? However, in the aftermath of the 9/11 tragedy, this is what we were expected to believe. This, IMHO, is a sad and unbelieveable attempt to put a good face on a failed administration’s biggest failure.
Presidents are given briefing papers to alert them to impending situations, not to attempt to teach them history. However, when a President spends a record amount of time on vacation and fails to read briefing papers and reports, and his staff lacks the zeal to push him on points such as this, horrendous events take place with no attempt to circumvent them.
We will never know if the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented, but if a valiant attempt at prevention had been made, at least Mr. Bush could righfully say that he had done everything possible to avert it. Instead NOTHING was done to avert it, simply because he and his staff either ignored a warning written in plain English, or because they did not have the intellect to be able to interpret that plain English.
"This is what happens when the people elect a President who insists on telling the truth. For such a long time we have had either a horny redneck liar and then a stupid redneck liar that it seems you have come to depend on the lies, but I am grateful to have a President who calls it as he sees it."
Whitey, which president insists on telling the truth??
It’s difficult to tell from your comments.
Nope, that didn’t happen the last 8 years, or the the 8 years before that. Republicans and Democrats both spent money foolishly. They are BOTH guilty. And Bush didn’t bother to veto almost any spending bill (dumb).
Regardless of which way you lean, this country can simply not grow the government, and tax the people as if we have unlimited funds, and hope that it somehow causes the public sector to grow. It’s pure insanity - this is what the common man knows that people who go to Washington forget.
Sir Winston Churchill said “We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.” Thomas Jefferson said “I am for a government rigorously frugal and simple. Were we directed from Washington when to sow, when to reap, we should soon want bread.”
They are both right on the money. In other words, all of the stimulus crisis government growth plans that both Bush and Obama pushed are 180 degrees from what we need. We need a limited (inexpensive) government with limited powers. We need to let YOU decide how to spend the money YOU earn, because YOU will more careful with that money than any government, spending “other peoples money”. It’s not their money - it’s OURS, we earned it.
We need the government to also but out of telling us how to run our businesses, and instead work on making anything they run work reasonably well (or at all).
What makes you think the pres. is an honest man? He is no worse or no better than all the others. I am not defending Clinton or Bush but you cannot possibly think Obama is totally honest.
he is from Illinois, strike 1
he is from Chicago, strike 2
he is a politician, strike 3
he is a politician who made promises that he has no intentions on keeping, strike 4
he is a politician that made promises he knew he could not keep, strike 5
he is a politician who speaks words so we all know he is a common liar, strike 6
Whitey, do not be offended, I am being somewhat tongue in cheek but you can’t seriously think he is our new honest savior.
…you can’t seriously think he is our new honest savior.
True enough. I am not a worshiper of the new President. I simply think he is telling the truth about the current state of the economy, which I find refreshing. I am sure we will uncover his lies as time passes. I promise to treat him with the same disdain as the other Presidents when the time comes.
Yes, get the government out of the way. There are times and places for goverment regulation, but for the most part mokeying with the public sector causes more problems than good.
Prime example: The government should never have told Fanny and Freddie to make loans to people who could not afford them. This is what really caused the problem that started our mess. If someone can’t afford something - don’t loan them the money.
And 401K - why do we even have these? How about the 100% Keep plan where you keep ALL the money you earn, without tricky changing rules. Then pay taxes when you decide to spend. Talk about a boon to investment and savings! Simple and elegant - but it would expose how wasteful government really is, so the self perpetuating government will never do it.
I fear the only solution will be to overthrow the present in-breads, and start over. That’s what Thomas Jefferson recommend to do, every 20 years or so. He was right, and we are WAY overdue.
“Fair tax” that you tout is nothing more than national sales tax. That would further exempt corporations from their rightful tax obligations and further encourage our own tax burden. Right now corp0rations pay !/6 of the tax burden that working individuals do; 380 billion to nearly 1.8 trillion for individual income tax.
Social security collects 200 billion more each year more than it pays out and Rep administrations have a history of raiding the fund at our expense.
Look at history…both Rep and Dems spend equally and raise the cost of govt. Rep. administrations encourage deficits by cutting taxes and shift the outlay to defense. The stock market has ALWAYS done better in the last 50 years by 20% UNDER DEM. admins.
You can’t rewrite history…it is what it is.
You’re 8 years late in throwing out the “in-breads”…we already did in the last election.
National single payer health care and cradle to grave education funding for all those that qualify would put us on an equal footing with the rest of the industrialized world and save most of our industrial base that we have left and encourage more.
It is that simple…and the brightest people get it. The slaves to demagoguery don’t.
hallkbrdz, if government regulation is the problem, why is Canada’s economy flourishing? They heavily regulate their banks and they are doing quite well in this global recession. Canada’s job market keeps growing and ours keeps shrinking. If government regulation is the problem, how do you explain this?
Dagosa, both parties have raided the social security trust fund.
After the first two years of Cinton it’s been the official policy of dems NOT to raid the trust fund and what Gore and Kerry campaign on…so more correctly “recent history”.
Bush changed all that.
Canada does so well for several reasons…along with a national HC plan that allows them to undercut our production bids by 30% (that’s how we lost our paper industry ) they are ther leading exporter of oil into the US. They also have the largest fresh water supply in the world. With a small population, they are sitting on a goal mine.
If Bush wanted to make a non terrorist related invasion, he should have annexed Canada…he would have had more support.
“In 1999, Senator Phil Gramm (R-Texas) sponsored a bill…”
The Gramm-Leach-Blily Act passed by the Senate 90-8 and by the House 362-57. Clearly, most Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the bill.
1.There are currently mor motor vehicles in the US than licensed drivers!! If World War III broke out and all car and truck production stopped, Americans would do just fine for 4 years or so by not buying ANY CARS!
The motor vehicle production capacity in the US is 18 million units per year. The current buying level is at 11 million; still a huge volume compared to 20 years ago when cars did not last as long. Worldwide there is a similar over-capacity!!
Americans are maxed out on their credit cards, many on their mortgages, and financial institutions are tightening credit in the face of major defaults, which they are actually responsible for by making irresponsible loans. Americans have been “negative savers” for the last 20 years; they have incurred more debt than they saved! This used to be called “living beyond your means”. Ask your parents or grandparents. All this debt has been financed by the Chinese by and large, who have a very high savings rate.
Last year’s sky high fuel prices were a major hit to the Detroit three who made mostly gas guzzlers. Now that gas is cheap again, the customers have either no access to credit or are behind in their payments on everything else.
Job losses in other industries with rising unemplyoment hits the major items first; vacations, new cars, and other major postponable expenses.
All manufacturers are suffering; the Japanese and Koreans are cutting back productions as well. Sales of evemn the bsets cars are down for reasons given above.
As in any major depression or recessiosn, the fiancially weak companies will bite the dust, and their assests bought up by others. During the Asian meltdwn in the 90s, Kia ended up owned by Hyundai, Daewoo went bankrupt and its assets were bought by GM.
In other words, the cars on sale at this time are not the major cause for the slowdown, although Hummers and other inefficient and pricier vehicles are suffering more. Even Prius sales have been on a downward spiral. When you lose your job, buying an economy car is not your first priority.
And, I didn’t claim otherwise! There is more than enough blame to spread around regarding the bad policy decisions and legislation of the past 10 years or so, but I stand by what I said regarding Phil Gramm and his policies.
I hear you…the general consensus among economist is that, even among those with jobs buying will not pick up substantially until personal debt is under control. Where the average American saves “0” of his income, vs over 20% for many other countries…not too soon. And with the reduction of savings in stock related investment accounts , it seems we’ll have to wait until the stock market goes up a wee bit more as well…