In Europe right now the people are getting angry, they don't like what has happened. They feel as if it wasn't their fault. However, I have a different opinion of the matter. I do think it was the citizen's fault for allowing deficit spending, and socialist economic strategies in their country. I think it's their fault because they allowed leaders to promise them things which were impossible telling them that they could get free stuff, so they continued to vote these gentlemen into office.
Now, it's time to pay the piper, and they don't want to pay, so they are rioting in the streets. The same thing could happen here in the United States as well. If the Obama administration and the government keep spending money at this rate, eventually it's going to come time to pay, and the government will not be able to give all those free services they were giving away to buy votes. Then the people will be very angry and they will rebel and protest. When it comes time for austerity, and time to cut back on the spending, they are not going to like what happens.
Not long ago, I was talking to someone in the UK about this, and they told me that the US was smart for doing the huge and ongoing stimulus under Obama, whereas, the UK had gone through austerity, and no one was happy there. Well, a lot of folks aren't happy here because they still don't have jobs, and the Obama stimulus was wasted, but we still have to pay all that money back in the future.
Some would say that "the US has done better than the UK where austerity has had little if any benefit" but that is a backwards view of things. You see, we didn't have austerity in the US, but it's coming, further the Obama Administration's stimulus money was channeled and funneled to pet projects of crony capitalist friends, essentially it was wasted.
The US has not done well as there was NO net gain in jobs, actually considering the real unemployment numbers we are still over 9 million jobs short, and now we need austerity, so it was a double hit and we are still at no growth, but we will get inflation, stagflation, dis-deflation, or whatever the Nobel Prize socialist economic winner of 2013 wants to call it, and it's not going to be pretty.
If we are to compare the UK austerity with the Obama stimulus, I would contend that they are both the unintended consequences of socialist economic theory. We don't need socialism in the United States, we need free-market economics, a reality check, and we need to teach people how to fish, not give them fish each and every day at the taxpayer's expense, or with money that our children will have to pay back in the future. Please consider all this and think on it.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Did Obama Save GM - No Actually He Isn't the One Who Pulled That Trigger, It Was Bush
Obama routinely takes credit for the "Stimulus" he supposedly passed saving the auto industry; no Bush did that, as it was the first stimulus. But Obama was involved in negotiating the debt of GM where he unilaterally dismissed 100-years of bankruptcy law, and 50-years of franchising law, so he could bailout the unions, not the company which went bankrupt but still managed to bypass law and soak the bond holders and cause 700 small business auto dealerships to go out of business, how many jobs do you think that was.
In true free-markets stodgy old companies don't get a free-ride, that only hurts the consumer by preventing competition, which would have kept the industry healthy guaranteeing it could compete in global markets thus supplying more jobs, rather than protect inefficient jobs or unions - again this is all about socialism and labor parties. There is NO honor in what Obama did for the unions in bailing out the auto industry.
Now I'm sure that there are a lot of people out there who have never had an economics class and don't understand how this all works, and when these old companies do come crashing down due to its inability to compete then the autoworkers all lose their jobs. I don't want to see anyone lose their job either, but do you know how many autoworkers, and small companies that make parts lost their businesses and jobs even with the GM and Chrysler bailout - millions. Little Joey, as his aunty used to call him, Joe Biden and President Obama routinely used the same quote in campaign speeches; "Osama bin Laden is dead, and General Motors is alive." What's interesting is they are taking credit for both of those activities. The old GM is dead, and a new GM was formed.
The reality is we can thank President Bush for upgrading our intelligence agencies, and our military for getting Osama bin Laden. We should also note that it was President Bush that initiated the General Motors bailout. But it was later president Obama, who is supposedly a constitutional lawyer, seemed to break ranks with the rule of law using heavy handedly handed tactics for the unions, and taxpayer's money was used for their pensions, Cadillac healthcare benefits, and even buyout packages, while he let the company go bankrupt.
Of course, if you say something enough times, people start believing it. Apparently people have a shorter attention span and memory due to the Internet, and well, it's just amazing what you can get people to believe using those strategies. But that doesn't make it the truth. If we are to engage in free-market capitalism and get this economy back where it needs to be, we should not turn our backs on reality, by fostering a myth and a view of a created reality which never had existed in the first place.
This will only doom us to repeat our history because we won't be able to study the true history of what actually happened. That's sets a really bad precedent. And that's why I'm not voting for President Obama. If you live in the State of Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, or Pennsylvania then you shouldn't either. He's making a mockery out of the free-market economy that built these states into the powerhouses they are today. Please consider all this and think on it.
In true free-markets stodgy old companies don't get a free-ride, that only hurts the consumer by preventing competition, which would have kept the industry healthy guaranteeing it could compete in global markets thus supplying more jobs, rather than protect inefficient jobs or unions - again this is all about socialism and labor parties. There is NO honor in what Obama did for the unions in bailing out the auto industry.
Now I'm sure that there are a lot of people out there who have never had an economics class and don't understand how this all works, and when these old companies do come crashing down due to its inability to compete then the autoworkers all lose their jobs. I don't want to see anyone lose their job either, but do you know how many autoworkers, and small companies that make parts lost their businesses and jobs even with the GM and Chrysler bailout - millions. Little Joey, as his aunty used to call him, Joe Biden and President Obama routinely used the same quote in campaign speeches; "Osama bin Laden is dead, and General Motors is alive." What's interesting is they are taking credit for both of those activities. The old GM is dead, and a new GM was formed.
The reality is we can thank President Bush for upgrading our intelligence agencies, and our military for getting Osama bin Laden. We should also note that it was President Bush that initiated the General Motors bailout. But it was later president Obama, who is supposedly a constitutional lawyer, seemed to break ranks with the rule of law using heavy handedly handed tactics for the unions, and taxpayer's money was used for their pensions, Cadillac healthcare benefits, and even buyout packages, while he let the company go bankrupt.
Of course, if you say something enough times, people start believing it. Apparently people have a shorter attention span and memory due to the Internet, and well, it's just amazing what you can get people to believe using those strategies. But that doesn't make it the truth. If we are to engage in free-market capitalism and get this economy back where it needs to be, we should not turn our backs on reality, by fostering a myth and a view of a created reality which never had existed in the first place.
This will only doom us to repeat our history because we won't be able to study the true history of what actually happened. That's sets a really bad precedent. And that's why I'm not voting for President Obama. If you live in the State of Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, or Pennsylvania then you shouldn't either. He's making a mockery out of the free-market economy that built these states into the powerhouses they are today. Please consider all this and think on it.
Obama Wants More Regulations On Wall Street - Why The Problem Was Lack of Enforcement
We had some pretty serious economic pain in 2008, but it was the culmination of so many things really. We keep listening to President Obama, and VP Joe Biden run around the country claiming that we need more regulations on Wall Street. But we had plenty of regulations prior to the crash, they just were not being enforced. Overregulation isn't the answer, and attempting to regulate morality doesn't work either. Further, I would submit to you that if we want more regulation on Wall Street, maybe we should start with more regulation against insider trading in Congress, and crony capitalism of the executive branch.
You see, it was not a lack of regulation on Wall Street which caused the banking crisis rather it was failure to enforce the rules already on the books. It was also the incestuous relationship of Washington DC with regards to Freddie and Fannie, plus the attacks on AIG and Hank Greenberg by Elliot Spitzer. Hank who built the company would never have let a small AIG office in London sell insurance policies for those mortgage bundles of credit default swaps at that level of risk, that's just too much exposure.
Further, Treasury Secretary Snow and President Bush told Congress that the Freddie and Fannie thing was out of control, but it seems everyone wanted an "ownership society" and we made rules for credit lending to ensure "equality" - oh so, there we go again, that socialist motif of; Equality and Sustainability.
Next for those who say that we need Obama in office to keep an eye on Wall Street - well that's just ridiculous because it was the banks and their lobbyists and lawyers who wrote the Dodd Frank Bill, which now sets big banks up for big advantages over smaller banks and community banks who are generally the ones who lend money to small businesses, and there isn't a lot of lending going on for smaller companies who provide 2/3rds of the jobs in this great nation. Look, I was a founder of a franchise company, so this point is just un-debatable, if Obama had run a business at any time in his adult life or teen years, he'd know this already.
It seems that every time we put more regulation on Wall Street, all that happens is they are engaged in the lawmaking, and those laws turn out to put barriers to entry for any smaller companies which wish to compete with them. Meanwhile, under the backdrop of anger from the population, Congress is able to pass these bills on the fast track to getting signed into law, and all the congressmen are able to get tons of campaign contributions to stave off their political competitors at home. This just means the same Congressman which are taking campaign contributions to create laws favoring the very Wall Street keep getting reelected to do even more damage later on.
If we would have been enforcing the regulations already on the books, the 2008 economic crisis wouldn't have happened. Who's to blame for this crony capitalism? Both sides of the aisle, but president Obama keeps blaming President Bush. I'd say that's rather hypocritical, and although it makes for nice debating points and political rhetoric, it simply isn't so.
Further, if President Obama and his administration were so good the economy, we'd be recovered by now, but as you've guessed; we're not. Yes, I realize that we as Americans know that all the promises that he made were false realities, it's just that I don't think we should fall for it again the second time, not after the performance we've seen. Please consider all this and think on it.
You see, it was not a lack of regulation on Wall Street which caused the banking crisis rather it was failure to enforce the rules already on the books. It was also the incestuous relationship of Washington DC with regards to Freddie and Fannie, plus the attacks on AIG and Hank Greenberg by Elliot Spitzer. Hank who built the company would never have let a small AIG office in London sell insurance policies for those mortgage bundles of credit default swaps at that level of risk, that's just too much exposure.
Further, Treasury Secretary Snow and President Bush told Congress that the Freddie and Fannie thing was out of control, but it seems everyone wanted an "ownership society" and we made rules for credit lending to ensure "equality" - oh so, there we go again, that socialist motif of; Equality and Sustainability.
Next for those who say that we need Obama in office to keep an eye on Wall Street - well that's just ridiculous because it was the banks and their lobbyists and lawyers who wrote the Dodd Frank Bill, which now sets big banks up for big advantages over smaller banks and community banks who are generally the ones who lend money to small businesses, and there isn't a lot of lending going on for smaller companies who provide 2/3rds of the jobs in this great nation. Look, I was a founder of a franchise company, so this point is just un-debatable, if Obama had run a business at any time in his adult life or teen years, he'd know this already.
It seems that every time we put more regulation on Wall Street, all that happens is they are engaged in the lawmaking, and those laws turn out to put barriers to entry for any smaller companies which wish to compete with them. Meanwhile, under the backdrop of anger from the population, Congress is able to pass these bills on the fast track to getting signed into law, and all the congressmen are able to get tons of campaign contributions to stave off their political competitors at home. This just means the same Congressman which are taking campaign contributions to create laws favoring the very Wall Street keep getting reelected to do even more damage later on.
If we would have been enforcing the regulations already on the books, the 2008 economic crisis wouldn't have happened. Who's to blame for this crony capitalism? Both sides of the aisle, but president Obama keeps blaming President Bush. I'd say that's rather hypocritical, and although it makes for nice debating points and political rhetoric, it simply isn't so.
Further, if President Obama and his administration were so good the economy, we'd be recovered by now, but as you've guessed; we're not. Yes, I realize that we as Americans know that all the promises that he made were false realities, it's just that I don't think we should fall for it again the second time, not after the performance we've seen. Please consider all this and think on it.
The Crony Capitalism Culture and Cancer of Washington DC Discussed
Whereas, crony capitalism is part of the cancer of Washington DC and their culture that doesn't make it right, regardless of which party. But Obama promised to stop that nonsense and hasn't in his first four years in office. In fact he's been far worse than other administrations. The other day, I was discussing this with they left-leaning politically inclined Obama campaign operative. He told me that we shouldn't turn a blind side to the fact that crony capitalism goes on in Washington on both sides of the aisle. Okay so, let's discuss this shall we?
You see, no one's turning a blind's eye on this issue for either party, and I'm certainly not, nor is our think tank, but Obama has abused the system, and it hard to make the claim that we need criminal penalties after the election and a full investigation of everyone in his cabinet, all of the czars, and any advisors he has, but that might be wise. If he wins, we'd still need an investigation. I can recall that many Democrats who despised President Bush's politics demanded investigations and criminal proceedings against his administration. Fair is fair, right; or left?
Why should it be any different from the other side? Why shouldn't those who are Republicans, tea party members, or anyone on the other side of the political fence not demand those same types of investigations now of the Obama administration, their staff, and everyone involved with her operations? If they are innocent of any of these charges, accusations, or innuendos, then they should feel free to open up their e-mails, contacts, and records for all the see - after all, wasn't it Obama who promised to be transparent president?
It's time for President Obama to lead by example, to stop crony capitalism and not to engage in it for political campaign contributions for a second term. Nor should he be paying back his contributors with the gravy train lucrative government contracts which seem to befall all of his top corporate, investment banker, and deal-making donators. And like I said, it's not that Republican senators in the past haven't done dirty deals, or engaged in outrageous lobbyists contributions for a vote, it's just that we were promised by President Obama that he would be better than that.
Judging from some of these alternative energy contracts, the deals with ACCORN, and the handing-out of quasi-intelligence information to Hollywood - we just have far too many questions, questions which have gone unanswered, and that are far too coincidences for us to look the other way. If we are ever going to fix Washington DC, we need to start at the top, and follow the money. Isn't that exactly what the Democrats said during the Bush-Cheney administration? Well, look what Obama's Team has done, look what the Democrats have done, the hypocrisy in my opinion has gone on too long, and it's time that it stopped.
We can change all that on November 6, 2012 by reelecting a new president, and then going after anyone who engaged in illegal activity associated with the Obama administration, or allow them to prove themselves through transparency that they are innocent. They have every right to prove their innocence; I say we let them do it. Please consider all this and think on it.
You see, no one's turning a blind's eye on this issue for either party, and I'm certainly not, nor is our think tank, but Obama has abused the system, and it hard to make the claim that we need criminal penalties after the election and a full investigation of everyone in his cabinet, all of the czars, and any advisors he has, but that might be wise. If he wins, we'd still need an investigation. I can recall that many Democrats who despised President Bush's politics demanded investigations and criminal proceedings against his administration. Fair is fair, right; or left?
Why should it be any different from the other side? Why shouldn't those who are Republicans, tea party members, or anyone on the other side of the political fence not demand those same types of investigations now of the Obama administration, their staff, and everyone involved with her operations? If they are innocent of any of these charges, accusations, or innuendos, then they should feel free to open up their e-mails, contacts, and records for all the see - after all, wasn't it Obama who promised to be transparent president?
It's time for President Obama to lead by example, to stop crony capitalism and not to engage in it for political campaign contributions for a second term. Nor should he be paying back his contributors with the gravy train lucrative government contracts which seem to befall all of his top corporate, investment banker, and deal-making donators. And like I said, it's not that Republican senators in the past haven't done dirty deals, or engaged in outrageous lobbyists contributions for a vote, it's just that we were promised by President Obama that he would be better than that.
Judging from some of these alternative energy contracts, the deals with ACCORN, and the handing-out of quasi-intelligence information to Hollywood - we just have far too many questions, questions which have gone unanswered, and that are far too coincidences for us to look the other way. If we are ever going to fix Washington DC, we need to start at the top, and follow the money. Isn't that exactly what the Democrats said during the Bush-Cheney administration? Well, look what Obama's Team has done, look what the Democrats have done, the hypocrisy in my opinion has gone on too long, and it's time that it stopped.
We can change all that on November 6, 2012 by reelecting a new president, and then going after anyone who engaged in illegal activity associated with the Obama administration, or allow them to prove themselves through transparency that they are innocent. They have every right to prove their innocence; I say we let them do it. Please consider all this and think on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)