Re: Sleepless in Miami
posted at 8/25/2010 3:01 AM EDT
there is no precedent for massive politician spending rescuing a country.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal
The WPA alone spent $3.3B in 1935 - that program alone would be anywhere from $45B to $700B in todays dollars depending on the method of conversion.
Another tool used in 1933 was the HOLC ... quite similar to todays' housing debacle.http://www.aei.org/outlook/27293
Remember, Bush initially refused to provide deficit spending to prevent a depression on his way out the door. He preferred to sit and read to kindergarten children than make an executive decision that would ensure him of being the president responsible for the next depression and the biggest defecit spender of all time - let the next guy have that responsibility, until Paulson intervened and Congress agreed that there was no time left.
this is why until there are term limits and true reforms, the inept clowns will populate both parties of government and neither party will do anything to upset the apple cart
Have agreed with that for years - funny that we saw fit to set limits on the presidency but not on congress or the senate. anyone who brainlessly supports this current trajectory of our gov't, which is to sap the entire economy of all of the money and aggregate all of the power into a giant state is a comrade in the truest sense of the word and it doesn't matter what party you vote for.
On the contrary, the govt is not trying to sap the economy of all the $, it is trying to create money growth by providing the banks with free money and printing new currency. The only way to defeat deflation is to feed the fever not starve the cold. It's not a pleasant concept but it's a far better outcome (inflation from a debased currency with the ability to pay your sovereign debt off with worthless $) than the alternative - deflation followed by depression for 10-30 years. As for "the power," it seems that the current Prez is doing much the same that Roosevelt did - restoring some power back to the people via the unions whose power was usurped under Reagan (Air Traffic Controllers Precedent). OBama has no intention of nationalizing or taking power away from the private sector and indeed realizes that most job growth comes from small business.can y'all name for me some wildly succesful and efficient gov't bureaucracies?
1) FDIC - established during the depression and positively averted another banking panic in 2008 financed by the banking industry.
2) FHA - another agency established during the depression has been a huge success based on it's intended goals until it's current intervention as a lender of last resort. Following the subprime crisis, FHA, along with Fanny and Freddy, became the source of much of the United States mortgage financing. The share of home purchases financed with FHA mortgages went from 2 percent to over one-third of mortgages in the country as conventional mortgage lending dried up from the credit crunch. Without the subprime market, many of the riskiest borrowers ended up borrowing from the Federal Housing Administration, and the FHA could suffer substantial losses as a result to the tune of $100B. This was deemed necessary to prop up the housing markets to avert more bank losses and avoid fueling more deflation leading to depression.
3) TVA - deemed a socialist project it succeeded in developing a rural area isolated from civilation due to the lack of electricity and overfarmed land. It became vital to the govt during WWII for aluminum production and later uranium enrichment for the Manhattan Project. While most complained that the govt shouldn't be in the power buisiness or competing with private utilities it succeeded in providing affordable power to a poor region and also become a wholesale distributor of cheap power to other public utilities. Controversial but successful.
Most would avoid adding Soc Sec to the list as it's perceived to be nothing more than a ponzi scheme. But consider its' potential for true success had the govt mandated that the funds raised were not added to the general fund but instead dedicated solely to an investment fund (in govt treasuries) for the benefit only of retiring contributors. It would be wildly successful and stand on it's own but our legislature as continued to add eligibility to non-contributing spouses, children, immigrants, etc and failed to provide a revenue stream from the funds collected as it does not invest funds received but spends it as if it were a part of regular tax revenues. This could have been mandated long ago as a "lock box" and used as a significant purchaser of govt debt providing income to the fund and a regular source for the purchase of govt debt minimizing the need for foreign countries to buy our debt.
The SEC is also a vital agency that has fallen into uselessness due to the longevity of the Republican Party in controling or deregulationg govt red tape, regulations and authority to espouse a free market environment. The fox wasn't in charge of the hen house - he just didn't find anyone there guarding it.
With that, I'm done discussing politics on a Sports Blog. I have no position at this time on global warming as I'm unsure of the accuracy of the reports and studies and I'm not sure that we, as a developed nation, should bear the brunt of responsibility for our past sins when developing nations like Brazil, Russia, China and India are the current violators and more prodigious at it than we ever were.
I am an Independent after years of supporting the Republican Party since graduating from Business School and working in the private sector for over 30 years. Over the course of time, one realizes that what looked great when it was occurring or for a few years thereafter, doesn't always pan out that way given 10 or 20 years of retrospection. A lot of the policies and principles of a party don't turn out as expected given the luxury of historical review should you live long enough or have the capacity to want to revisit what you originally supported. Hence, I no longer support one party or the other. I simply support the candidate that most closely aspires to my ideology. Sometimes he doesn't make it through the primaries - in which case I am left to vote for the best perceived alternative or not at all. I flip flop from party to party for the candidate of my choice as an Independent, not a Liberal or Conservative, but more of a Moderate or Realist that no longer alligns myself with one party based on blind faith.
To end, anyone that thinks that this country would be better off had the govt turned it's cheek and let the financial system dissolve in a black hole of debt induced deflation leading to depression is an asshat of supreme purportions - to say (even now as we tinker on the edge) that no one can be sure that we would have had a depression given the outcome so far, despite all the stimulus and bailouts, is the height of stupidity and that person must be wearing his own personal tin hat on a daily basis.
Good Morning and again, good luck to you. I'll bet you one thing ... in ten or twenty years from now you will look back at this event with a far different perspective than you have now and be surprised how your seasoned ideology is in direct conflict with your current one ... mark my words, you too will evolve.