A Wall Street Bailout Bill
Monday, May 3rd, 2010 at
3:38 am
www.heritage.org The financial bill sponsored by Senator Dodd (D-CT) does not provide real reform and is riddled with flaws, including sustaining the “too big to fail” culture that led to the financial crisis.
Tagged with: bailout • Chris Dodd • financial reform • heritage • heritage foundation • Wall Street • wall street bailout
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
@shalcall : where was crash under Eisenhower? There were three brief recessions under Eisenhower – artificially induced by the Fed to prevent economy from overheating – while still maintaining low inflation, low unemployment, and *long-term* growth. The 20′s likewise was prosperous, until Ben Strong’s easy policy in 1927 created asset bubble (from non-intervention to intervention).
Well, let’s look at national defense first, how is it socialistic?
@tooltalk If you want to go point by point, national defense is socialistic simply by definition. The Defense Department, Department of Homeland Security, the National Security Agency, and other intelligence agencies are wholly owned and administered by the federal government. There is no competition among private defense companies to win contracts for the primary defense of the U.S. No market decides how much National Defense is worth.
While under the thumb of the Progressive Social-Fascists (crony-corporatists), the USA is turning into a corrupt Banana Republic. Yet, we have NOT banannas, only NUTS.
this video is a outright lie??/ how can they do this?
America, we really need to have a law passed stating, If someone who is running for government office does not adhere to the promises they made or if they lie, like Obama did, telling the American people whatever it was they needed to hear, just to get into the door, then goes directly against those promises in an attempt at destroying this nation, we should be able to have them removed. As of right now over 80% of the nation would like to see Obama removed, 80% should be that mark.
@yakyakyak69 …you’re no better than Obama, putting down your fellow Americans, the innocent people who work hard daily while this lying leech Obama parades around the world blaming them for his and other government officials actions. Never in the history of this nation has there been even one president who slandered, defamed and attacked other Americans, simply because they were smarter than he was. ONLY OBAMA IS THAT CHILDISH & INEXPERIENCED! An experienced person would know its wrong!
@AngryStudioEngineer
When I was talking about Social-Fascist Crony Corporatists, I was speaking of Obama who IS the definition of a Fascist. Bush was one too.
Only Fascists speak of Public-Private Partnerships, Gov’t “investment” in private companies, bailouts and regulations that only their giant corporate friends can afford to comply with thus killing their smaller competition. Healthcare, wall street regulation, bailouts are ALL corporatist, all fascism.
Obama is actually of the Stoic doctrine of philosophy, specifically Hegel’s version. This doctrine is the basis for ALL Socialism, Communism, Progressivism, Fascism, and Liberation Theology. This is why they all appear similar and folks keep using the various labels interchangeably ie he’s a communist, he’s a socialist, he’s a fascist. he’s a progressive, he’s a liberation theologist. The fact is he is a believer in the base doctrine for all these various sects.
@shalcall : ok. your silly liberal definition is a bit messed up.
Under your rather very broad loose definition, even the Nazi’s were socialists, so were Saddam Hussein, Kim Il Sung, Pinochet, etc. In fact, any state with standing army (or any gov’t agencies like DMVs, Small Claims Court) is a socialistic gov’t – all feudal princes were, according to your definition, “socialistic”. We are all, umm, “socialists” using your logic.
Now, seriously – as I pointed out earlier, when we discuss
@shalcall : socialism vs. capitalism – we are talking about different types of economic systems. The judicial (small claims courts, judges), national defense (military), political (your representatives, senators) functions are not economic functions of your gov’t. In another word, the purpose of these gov’t functions isn’t to achieve some economic goals.
Historically speaking, the US didn’t really have much of a permanent standing army until the ww2 had ended – that’s also when everything went
@shalcall : south. You see, the whole point the “declaration of war” was for congress to authorize raising money and army for your prez (aka, commander-in-chief). Again, up until the ww2, most Americans didn’t pay much taxes to begin with, partly b/c there was no permanent standing military (hence, no socialization at least by my definition). The exorbitant that we now pay didn’t even start until the ww2 when the payroll tax was first implemented (to reduce the money supply).
@shalcall : thx to liberals – their “evolving constitution” and warfarism – the war declaration has become more or less obsolete and, starting with the Korean war, the US now was in a permanent state of wars with 500+ military bases in 100+ countries. (Also note that the founders had no problem using letter of marque for privateers to fight pirates or enemies -).
Now, LBJ’s war on poverty on the other hand was a explicit socialistic policy in that it served to achieve certain economic goals -
@tooltalk First of all, North Korea (Kim Il Sung) is a socialist country. It uses a socialist economic system. Politically it is a dictatorship. Nazi Germany was politically fascist, but clearly had a mixed economy as well. This is not a “liberal” definition, it’s simply the definition. I never said we’re all socialists. I said the U.S. had a mixed economy with varying degrees of capitalism and socialism depending on the sector. It’s mostly capitalism.
@shalcall : by providing direct monetary (or in-kind) payments & subsidies to single-mothers, elders, students, disabled, farmers, artists, and other special interests groups (like GM or wall street)… And these are what make your gov’t socialistic.
@tooltalk How you can blame our military expansion during the 20th century on liberals alone is beyond me. I’m not a fan of war, probably because I’m a veteran of the current one. You’re not going to find me defending police actions in Korea, Vietnam or Iraq. But I will say that all of those actions had broad bipartisan support. I agree we should spend much less money on defense.
But I think you’d have to be blind to think that one side is responsible for our military industrial complex.
@shalcall : are you denying that liberals believe in the notion of “as-you-go” constitution? or that libs’ support of global gov’ts – be it the UN, NATO – and their roles in so-called peace missions in places like Somalia, Serbia, Sudan etc? Are you saying that this has nothing to do with internationalism pioneered by Wilson, JFK, LBJ? Do u not see that liberals’ intervention in all things economics and geo-political matters are based on fallacious belief that a few wise, benevolent Ivy
@shalcall : trained bureaucrats know how to run your life better than you could?
No, i’ts pointless to blame one political party over another – I’m saying that modern liberalism is at the root of all problems (neoconservatives under Bush for instance are hardcore warfare/welfare liberals who were once influential under JFK/LBJ.) Political parties are mere vehicle for promoting ideas, nothing more.
@vcdaniels you can’t be that thick?
@tooltalk Look, thanks for being somewhat civil, but I think you’re a bit crazy. To blame any political decision with negative consequences as liberal and to say “modern liberalism is the root of all problems” is just nuts with no support whatsoever in reality. To call neoconservatives under the Bush administration liberals makes me fear what you think actual conservatism is.
We are not going to agree, you are too far out there and you don’t know much about mainstream economics.
@shalcall : ok, here we go again – if you want to learn about the origin of neoconservatives – go watch PBS’s “Arguing the World”. I have summarized this many times here – they were once trotskyites who became influential intellectual figures under JFK+LBJ – Patrick Moynihan (as JFK’s undersec of labor), Nathan Bell, Daniel Glazer, Irving Kristol, etc. They switched their political party in mid-80′s from the demo party to the repubs at Reagan’s invitation (starting with Jean Kirkpatrick)
@shalcall : of course, that’s precisely my point – your claim that the ownership of military as being “socialistic” makes nonsense. Under your broad definition, pretty much every gov’t would be “socialistic”.
Furthermore, I have demonstrated that US military in the WW2 era didn’t possess the characteristics of socialism – in that the US wasn’t always the kind of militaristic empire it is now and there wasn’t much military to speak of.
@shalcall : wow.. let’s see. I have provided detailed historical facts and citation (Christina Romer’s recent work and PBS’s program on neocons) to prove that you have no idea (though I’m skeptical that you have any background in banking/money background to understand it). You got some balls to come back and claim that I don’t know much about mainstream economics b/c I presented some additional fact that criticizes your religion (ie, liberalism).
Well, let’s not waste time.
@arubberball
Whatever do you mean? From what I see on the all comments page for this video, I didn’t make a comment.
@vcdaniels “TELL IT, COLORED LADY WITH NO HEAD!! Proudly display your belief in this ad by cropping your identity at the shoulders!” is this your comment? if so you are indeed thick. love people who only see things through the black and white prism. her race has nothing to do with the video.
@arubberball
I’m looking for that and I don’t see it anywhere. I’ve scrolled up and down 8 times and YouTube highlights all of your comments so it should be easy to spot. But it does remind me of pornos or other videos where you don’t want your identity associated with the content and so they have your face cropped off, digitized, blacked out, blurred or otherwise censored. I mean, if you’re proud of what you’re saying and you believe in it, don’t hide your face – hold your head up & say it.