I am curious about one thing though, Nate. These sweeping reforms and 'government' control, would it have come to fruition if your so called 'conservatives' kept their damn hands out of the cookie jar.
This is just the effect of the cause. We voted him in to do these things because of the rampant greed and corruption of these large corporation.
Do I agree with what he is doing? No.
Do I blame him? No. This is the fault of those who have no compassion for those below them financially. Personally I would rather have seen all these corporations fall and seen all those responsible be strung up by their toes, but most see my thought as a bit draconian.
The conservatives are anything but, and the liberals are exactly what they say they are. We doomed ourselves by believing the lies of those with money, power and religion. Now we suffer.
You don't think I'm disappointed in their spending habits during the last decade? You bet I am. I was sorely disappointed when Bush joined the Democrats in pushing for TARP and for bailing out GM. He shouldn't have done either.
I remember the last financial regulations reform that came when Enron went under. It was called Sarbanes-Oxley and came with burdensome reporting reurements and the now infamous, mark-to-market regulation, which required people to value assets at what they were worth now. This was in the name of protecting the world from Enron and World Com. Of course, the unintended consequence of this law was to absolutely punish small business because the costs of compliance and the market to market made little sense because business don't always buy assets with their current value in mind, and, thus, helped inflate losses the banks suffered.
Was any of that intended? Hell, no. One thing government regulation has taught is there is not a thing in the universe that best illustrates the concept of unintended consequences. I don't care who proposes it, I'm always skeptical of "comprehensive" reform, especially in response to a crisis.
The cure is often more poisonous than the disease.
How is this the fault of those who have no compassion for this below them? Who has no compassion for those below them and HOW did they cause this mess? It's like Yoshimoto claiming "deregulation" without ever explaining anything.
This ignores the Community Reinvestiment Act, ignores that people like Janet Reno and Barney Frank threatened banks to make those subprime loans, ignores that Republicans warned of this in 2005 only to be called racists, and ignores the infamous "liar" loans. Everything is portrayed as the fault of business and Republicans. Nothing is the fault of THIS government. AIG gets roasked alive, while everyone ignores the ever larger bonuses given out at Freddie and Fannie. 's jsut Oh, and Freddie and Fannie are big contributors to Dems such as Obama, for example. But, that's probably just a coincidence. This is hardly all conservatives fault.
Is business blameless? No, but this is far, far from being all their fault.
Blame him? You may not, but I absolutely do. This is simply the effect of the cause? Bull.
Obama's chosen solutions are his own. He whines about the pain that Bush caused and how it made all this is necessary. I have never see a politician heep everything on his predecessor the way this guy does. He did not cause this initial crisis, but he is making it worse. This spending was necessary in response to the crisis? Garbage.
He CHOSE to keep funneling money to GM and Chrysler even as the continued coming back for more, and he chose to become owner while threatening bondholders who didn't take well to being screwed. Bush may have made the first loan, but he was NOT obligated to do it again when faced with evidence it wasn't going to work.
GM and Chrysler could have been left to file Chapter 11 on their own and gone through a normal bankruptcy. They weren't.
He could have chose to listen to the CBO and not pass the failure of a stimulus. He didn't.
He could wait to "fix" health until the economy rebounds. He's not.
He could pass on Cap and Tax and prevent it from killing the economy. He's not.
He doesn't have to pass paycaps and undercut own tax revenue at a time when he desperately needs any dime he can find.
Absolutely none of this is mandatory. Perhaps something needed to be done, but these policies and this takeover are far from his only options. He chose his solution and deserves to be saddled with its consequences.
You want to see those corporations fall? Alright. You can be the messenger who informs every little guy that works for them that they are now out of job. They're better off unemployed than working for an evil corporation anyway, right? I fail to see how punishing these evil doers actually solves anything. It may make people feel better, but it won't revive the economy.
What amazes me about it is that people can excoriate business and damn them all to hell as if it always self-evident and they all screw everyone all the time. It's easy to complain and roast business when it not YOUR employer that gets creamed. It's easy to support pay caps when it isn't your pay being capped.
Let me ask you something, if Obama can cap CEO pay? What's to stop him from telling you how much your allowed to make?
Oh, and you think Obama wouldn't be pushing Cap and Tax, Health Care "reform" if the economy hadn't tanked?
