Yeh I know Bush did it. He did the debt and Obama just made it bigger. Whatever! While the left are playing political games about the Tea Party,Sarah Palin and all the other BS China is making a threat to destable our economy if we don't get out of Taiwan our friend. Thanks to Bush,Obama and the Democrats in Congress we are being held hostage by the debt holders. If China sells our debt we will be in the greatest depression. But Gibbs is playing funny with his Sarah Palin jokes. Obama keeps playing the Washington politial games of blame. And the media is trying to find ways to get Sarah Palin and the Tea Parties. These idiots in Washington better start taking this stuff serious. The reccession isn't ending and they want to add almost $2 trillion more in debt. All this and the left keep proping up their Party. While the Progressives are defining us in the Tea Party as racist,dumb,hatemongers. We are the only ones that can define who we are. We are Democrats,Republicans,Libertarians and Independents. One thing we all in the TEA Party agree with is that we need to be fiscally responsable,smaller government and we believe in the Constitution. The only people that don't agree with those three things are Progressives. We need to find fiscally conservative people to run and win. We need to get rid of everyone in Washington that is calling for a raise in the national debt to China. Get involed or we will have China breathing heavier down our backs and calling the shots in American policy. And thanks to Bush,Obama and Congress they gave away America. It's time to stop fiddling and start doing something that has worked instead of doing things that have never worked other then in a Progressives warped minds.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Obama and the Democrats Fiddle While America Burns
Yeh I know Bush did it. He did the debt and Obama just made it bigger. Whatever! While the left are playing political games about the Tea Party,Sarah Palin and all the other BS China is making a threat to destable our economy if we don't get out of Taiwan our friend. Thanks to Bush,Obama and the Democrats in Congress we are being held hostage by the debt holders. If China sells our debt we will be in the greatest depression. But Gibbs is playing funny with his Sarah Palin jokes. Obama keeps playing the Washington politial games of blame. And the media is trying to find ways to get Sarah Palin and the Tea Parties. These idiots in Washington better start taking this stuff serious. The reccession isn't ending and they want to add almost $2 trillion more in debt. All this and the left keep proping up their Party. While the Progressives are defining us in the Tea Party as racist,dumb,hatemongers. We are the only ones that can define who we are. We are Democrats,Republicans,Libertarians and Independents. One thing we all in the TEA Party agree with is that we need to be fiscally responsable,smaller government and we believe in the Constitution. The only people that don't agree with those three things are Progressives. We need to find fiscally conservative people to run and win. We need to get rid of everyone in Washington that is calling for a raise in the national debt to China. Get involed or we will have China breathing heavier down our backs and calling the shots in American policy. And thanks to Bush,Obama and Congress they gave away America. It's time to stop fiddling and start doing something that has worked instead of doing things that have never worked other then in a Progressives warped minds.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Uhhh...Obama is not about jobs. What a laff. He is about government control and ownership of everything and his saying we need jobs is like telling your enemies you need to be friends right after they knock the H out of you and your family and kidnap your funds so you will call out to them for help which they control. Duh. Got to vote this madman out of office.
ReplyDeleteThis is all Bush's fault,you teabaggers.
ReplyDeleteEconomy Up till Now Has Never Been at the TOP of Nobamas Agenda! All Of a SUDDEN Voters Speak and He Now Wants to Make NICE! I Think Hes Trying to Suck Republicans into the QUAGMIRE He CREATED and As a Conservative HE Picked the BAND Let Him DO the DANCE!
ReplyDeleteGood Econmomy and JOBS Will NOT Go with HIS Vision of Redistribution of Wealth! Why Would the SMARTEST Presdient EVER with The Advisors HE HAS Advising Him BE SO Careless With the American Economy and Its Citizens! Administration HAD One Agenda Item Nobama Care along With Bailing OUT Businesses to BIG to Fail! Now Government Involved in PUBLIC Sector and That AINT Going to Work for Several Reasons. Most Important HOW Many of the Presidents Advisors ACTUALLY Worked in Private Sector Including HIM!
China Seems to Be Getting Ready to Hold OUR Debt to Them over OUR Head! Shocking!
All Politicans SHOULD Be SCRUTINIZED Before VOTING for ANY of THEM!
The libs are in denial. If Bush was wrong (and he was on fiscal issues) Obama is wrong X4.
ReplyDeleteYou can't have it both ways, lefties!
The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal are bristling with the news that Republicans have decided now is the time to suck up to Wall Street. As the saying goes, there is no truer friend than a Wall Street arbitrageur -- they are the salt-of-the-earth, the most loyal men who ever drew a breath!
ReplyDeleteWhat are Republicans thinking? While not every money-manipulator on Wall Street deserves to be treated like a heroin dealer, lots do. Could the Republicans be a little more discriminating in picking up the Democrats' old friends?
The Democrats are acting as if they want to punish everyone in the financial services industry, including the innocent, while the Republicans seem to want to protect everyone on Wall Street, including the guilty.
How about just punishing the guilty? The Democrats can't do that because the list of Wall Street's biggest offenders may turn out to be eerily similar to the list of Obama's biggest campaign contributors.
Employees from Goldman Sachs gave more to the Obama campaign than any other organization except the University of California -- with Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase quickly following in sixth and seventh place.
Whatever Obama has in mind for punishing the financial industry, I promise you, he won't punish his friends. After JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon took a $17 million bonus this week, and Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein got a $9 million bonus, Obama said he didn't begrudge them their bonuses, saying, "I know both those guys."
Obama seems to be hoping that his vague bluster about "obscene profits" will lure Republicans into embracing Wall Street welfare recipients -- thereby losing Americans forever.
Never bet against Republicans being outwitted.
Risk-taking and speculation are good. But the Democrats' crony capitalism is the worst of both worlds: risk-taking without any real risk for the risk-takers. It's like gambling with your rich daddy's money, except we're the rich daddy.
Obama, like the rest of his party, is an ideologue who doesn't understand or particularly like the free market. He fundamentally believes in the efficacy of the welfare state, whether the beneficiary is a layabout single mother or a rich Wall Street banker.
As Peter Schweizer describes in his magnificent book "Architects of Ruin," the Democrats have been bailing out investment houses from their bad bets since the Clinton administration. The bankers got all the profits when their risky bonds were paying -- and then gave massive donations to their Democratic benefactors. But once the bets went bad, it was the taxpayers' problem.
Heavily leveraged securities packages put together by Goldman Sachs and others were the HIV virus that killed the American economy. And the reason investment firms piled leverage on leverage on leverage was that they knew the government would bail them out if their house of cards collapsed.
On one hand, Goldman put together toxic securities packages for their clients, but on the other hand, Goldman knew the mortgage securities being sold on the market were crap, so they also took out lots of insurance with AIG on crappy products being traded on the market.
It would be as if, anticipating a major earthquake, Goldman bought massive insurance policies on every house on the San Andreas fault line.
There's nothing wrong with taking risks and making bets, provided that if you bet wrong or if you bankrupt your betting partner with wild gambles: You lose.
The problem was that Goldman and AIG, among many others, knew they wouldn't lose. Twenty years of Democratic bailouts have led them to understand that when their bets go bad, the taxpayer will save them.
Which is exactly what happened.
When the earthquake hit toxic securities, the insurer, AIG, couldn't pay up. Normally, that would result in the insurer going bankrupt, an orderly proceeding in bankruptcy court to distribute AIG's assets, and Goldman recovering only a portion of the insurance payout on the crappy products.
ReplyDeleteBut instead of AIG going bankrupt and Goldman taking a hit, the U.S. taxpayer made good on AIG's securities insurance. In a deal arranged by former Goldman CEO and current Obama BFF, Hank Paulson, Goldman ended up being paid -- by you -- an astonishing 100 cents on the dollar.
So Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein's boast that his firm didn't want TARP money and has paid it all back is completely irrelevant. Goldman took billions of dollars -- that's millions with a "b" -- of the AIG bailout money. How about paying that back?
It took The New York Times a year and a half to figure out Goldman's jackpot winnings from the AIG bailout -- $12.9 billion, according to the Times -- so the first thing Republicans ought to do is hold hearings to determine who benefited from the Democrats' crony capitalism, and not take their bluster as fact.
The next step should be to get all the bailout money back.
When the government steps in to save the very financial institutions that poisoned the nation's financial system with contaminated securities and derivatives -- all while the bankers get to keep the fees and bonuses on their bad bets -- we are not talking about a free market.
We're talking about regular Americans being forced to foot the bill for the gambling habits of left-wing multimillionaires by buying the malefactors more chips every time they lose.
Republicans should defend any investment houses that never benefited from a government bailout. But anyone who took huge gambles, lost and got bailed out with taxpayer money should be tortured and then shot, miraculously brought back to life, tortured some more, then shot a few more times.
In reality its not either bush's or Obama's fault that we have this issue. Part of it is the inherent nature of capitalism and thus the fault lies with all Americans, those that pushed our manufacturing to a communist nation where the profits went to the government and those that ignored the reality of the situation by buying more and more cheap products from that nation.
ReplyDeleteI am always astounded by the amount of anti-socialist conservatives in America who see no problem in purchasing a majority of their products from a communist country like China. At the same time there is no lack of liberals purchasing things from Wal-mart and other places like that, but its the whole hypocrisy of buying communist goods while proclaiming that socialism doesn't work.
Its convient to blame the presidents for our societal failures, but it doesn't correct the core problem.
JoeC I Agree on MOST of What You Said BUT Governmnet Owes CHINA How Much and Its Beginning To Appear there Going to USE OUR DEBT Against Us in Their Agendas. Whats Worse Buying Products or Borrowing From Them Neither ARE Exceptable!
ReplyDeleteI Would Not Guess How To Fix Several Decades of Trade Imbalance To Fix OUR Manufacturing JOBs! Recently We put Larger Import Tax on Their Tires and They turned Around And Put Hire Taxes on OUR Chickens! We AINT Going to Win That Trade War To Many Countrys Involved!
It Is NOT A Failure of Capitolism as Much as a Failure of OUR Elected Elite in Washington! JoeC Capitolism/Free Market Got Us Where WE are and Politicans Have DONE The Harm!
Capitolism Has Worked for 233 years and Dont Know of Better System,Certainly not Sociaslism and Its Track Record!
JoeC, I have to disagree with you. The fault lies with the distorting effects of the government getting in the way of free trade, not with capitalism.
ReplyDeleteTire Trade Tirade
October 12, 2009
by Art Carden
In 2002, President Bush helped make us poorer by signing off on higher steel tariffs. In 2009, President Obama helped make us poorer by signing off on higher tire tariffs. Is this supposed to be change we can believe in?
Economic analysis shows that trade creates wealth. The law of comparative advantage demonstrates that when we specialize and trade, we produce more wealth using the same resources. Preventing trade means that we use more resources to produce less wealth.
A simple example illustrates the essential logic of comparative advantage. Suppose Amy can produce either one hundred oranges or ten tires in a day while Chen can produce either ten oranges or two tires in a day. At first glance, it doesn't look like they have anything to gain from one another: Amy is much more productive than Chen.
When we compare their opportunity costs, however, a different story emerges. The opportunity cost is what you have to give up to get something else. To produce one hundred oranges, Amy gives up the opportunity to produce ten tires. Her opportunity cost of an orange is one tenth of a tire, and her opportunity cost of a tire is ten oranges. Chen's opportunity cost of an orange is one fifth of a tire, and her opportunity cost of a tire is five oranges.
In terms of tires, it is cheaper for Amy to produce oranges because she only gives up one tenth of a tire to produce an orange while Chen has to give up one fifth of a tire. In terms of oranges, it is cheaper for Chen to produce tires because he only gives up five oranges to produce a tire while Amy gives up ten oranges to produce a tire.
They can both have more oranges and more tires if they specialize and trade. Suppose Chen offers Amy one tire in exchange for seven oranges. Chen would be better off because he would get seven oranges in exchange for one tire, whereas he would only get five oranges in exchange for one tire if he produced them himself.
So if Chen is better off, Amy has to be worse off, right? Wrong. This is an attractive deal for Amy too, because she can get a tire for only seven oranges, which is fewer than the ten oranges she would have to give up if she produced tires herself. At any "orange price" of tires between five and ten, Amy and Chen are both better off.
Well I couldn't get all of this article in one post. I'm sorry to post such a long article but it is quite informative, and unfortunately lengthy. Here is the rest:
ReplyDeleteEconomists have shown that the same logic applies to trade between countries as well. Simply replace "Amy" with "the United States of America" and "Chen" with "China," and you can easily see that both countries are better off if they can specialize and trade.
This law of comparative advantage is one of the most important and most poorly understood ideas in economics. It is also an anvil that has worn out many hammers. In spite of repeated objections from noneconomists and even a few theoretical counterexamples from economists, the law of comparative advantage remains robust.
Tire protectionism has other unintended but predictable consequences as well. Since we are poorer, we have fewer resources to invest in education, health care, and innovation. Also, higher tire prices means that some people will drive on worn-out tires longer than they otherwise would, which increases accident risk and will likely lead to more highway deaths.
There is another effect that goes beyond simple economics 101. In addition to an introductory course, I also teach courses in economic history and the history of economic ideas. In these classes, I focus on the role of institutions, ideas, communities, and secure private property rights in historical economic change.
"Preventing trade means that we use more resources to produce less wealth."
The president's capitulation to special interests tells people that they can expect the government to take care of them when things do not go their way. It encourages people to invest resources in picking others' pockets rather than producing wealth. History is littered with the dry bones of civilizations that encouraged Peter to get rich by robbing Paul. Protectionism is a step toward the dustbin of history.
The salutary effects of trade are sometimes hard to see, but they are very real and very important. By embracing protectionism, President Obama has adopted a policy that works against his supposed concern for Americans' well-being by reducing innovation, destroying wealth, perverting incentives, and encouraging destructive nationalism. Protectionism gives politicians an opportunity to appease special interests, but we're all worse off for it.
Freedy,
ReplyDeletewell thats an interesting article and i am sure that in theoretical economic world it might be right, but here in the real world where the fact that the imbalance of trade gives a communist country the needed capital to purchase our debt at high rates. Which gives them some measure of carrot/stick over us.
Al, I don't know how to change it either. I know that We wouldn't have done this with Communist Russia or Cuba, yet we do it with Communist china and since the bush admin Viet Nam. Sometime there is such a diconnect between economic and national security.
I don't see either side really taking on the issue.