Obama's Wrong About the Financial Crisis
Of course anybody who listens to news radio or follows any real news source's RSS feed has probably already heard Obama's warning to Wall Street. As I heard it on the radio and read through it on the BBC's site, a few things he said really concerned me. Now, obviously something has to change, but I believe the right change would be to get rid of or start to move away from the Fed. Since the New Deal turned out to be a raw deal, I think we should give capitalism another spin.
'He called on Wall Street to support "the most ambitious overhaul of the financial system since the Great Depression".' This is scary to those of us who believe that the New Deal prolonged rather than alleviated the Great Depression.
"Instead of learning the lessons of Lehman and the crisis from which we are still recovering, they are choosing to ignore them. They do so not just at their own peril, but at our nation's." First of all, I do think it is a bad idea to talk about "they" without naming names. It sucks credibility out of your statements. Secondly, I think it's dangerous to say that bankers are putting our nation in peril. This sounds like a prelude to martial law. It also sounds awfully socialist to blame rich people for ruining our nation. The Nazis did it, the Communists did it, and now Obama's doing it. This is especially interesting to me since it's coming on the heels of Brazil's president, whose country is about to borrow billions of dollars from the US to fund offshore drilling development (link), blaming everything on the rich (link).
'He told Wall Street that it could not resume taking risks without regard for consequences and said they should not expect US taxpayers to bail them out again.' This is wrong on so many levels! To start with, the whole investment system is built from risks and rewards. Wall Street should continue to take risks. Wall Street should eat the consequences when they fail. I whined and complained about the Bush bailout, as did many conservatives, because I believed it would foster an environment of irresponsibility. I opposed the Obama bailout for the same reason. This is like a parent telling their child they really mean it this time. What an enabler! How dare he criticize the irresponsibility he's helped create.
The article also talks about the new powers Obama wants to give to the federal reserve bank, to be able to seize private banks whose collapse might hurt the economy. Wow. Wow. Just Wow.
'Mr Obama said that his recovery was bearing fruit and had "prevented layoffs of tens of thousands of teachers, police officers and other essential public servants".' I guess the government sticks by government employees. Seriously. There's a lot to be said for the old spendulus package joke.
All in all, I just feel like the president, and in fact most politicians, even most media pundits, are on a very different page than I am, perhaps even in a different book. I feel that even most Republican politicians have a fundamentally different value set than I do. It seems to me as though both the D's and the R's are just trying to use big government to advance their agenda, whereas my agenda is to limit government. Third party, are we there yet?
Monday, September 14, 2009
Thursday, September 03, 2009
Not in Kansas Anymore...Wait!
So, tonight after teaching I was planning on checking out this great little seafood place I'd heard about, but since downtown Kansas City has absolutely no free parking, and no meters either - you got it, just those $1/20 minutes places - I decided to go to Chili's instead. First I took in District 9, so I was already a bit giddy when I walked into the restaurant, but nothing compares with the shell shock I received as the couple down the counter lit up. Yes, they were smoking in the restaurant.
Now, I know we Californians are snobs, but I have to say, smoke really does affect the way your food tastes. And even though I'm a libertarian capitalist, I have to admit that, were the law banning smoking in restaurants and bars in California repealed, I'd have to continue enforcing it with my wallet. In any case, I survived, I'm okay, but next time I might move to the other side of the glass. Ridiculous.
In more exciting news, my baby girl finally has a tooth, or so I'm told! I can't wait to see it tomorrow night.
That is all,
Andrew
So, tonight after teaching I was planning on checking out this great little seafood place I'd heard about, but since downtown Kansas City has absolutely no free parking, and no meters either - you got it, just those $1/20 minutes places - I decided to go to Chili's instead. First I took in District 9, so I was already a bit giddy when I walked into the restaurant, but nothing compares with the shell shock I received as the couple down the counter lit up. Yes, they were smoking in the restaurant.
Now, I know we Californians are snobs, but I have to say, smoke really does affect the way your food tastes. And even though I'm a libertarian capitalist, I have to admit that, were the law banning smoking in restaurants and bars in California repealed, I'd have to continue enforcing it with my wallet. In any case, I survived, I'm okay, but next time I might move to the other side of the glass. Ridiculous.
In more exciting news, my baby girl finally has a tooth, or so I'm told! I can't wait to see it tomorrow night.
That is all,
Andrew
These Death Panels
As I listen to the national debate on healthcare, I'm completely amazed by some of the lies propagated, not only by the administration, but also by the media. For an example from the president himself, read this: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/12/barack-obama/obama-has-praised-single-payer-plans-past/. And, of course, the mainstream media didn't fact-check, somebody else had to find the video for them. But it gets even worse!
In the break room at a teaching site in Phoenix, Arizona, I watched the anchors on MSNBC completely flame the right, asking if people would put up with these scare tactics, talking about "death panels" and the like. The response from both the administration AND the media has been, "What death panels?" "What are you talking about?" But I knew the truth: I have been talking with friends and family about this issue since before "death panel" became a popular term. Why? Because I read about it, in mid-July, on the New York Times website. Read it: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=5.
Now, this guy, Peter Singer, is Australian, but he is also professor of bioethics at Princeton, and he's writing here in the Times. It becomes fairly obvious from a brief scan of his wikipedia page that he's very liberal, and we all know the Times is, too. In any case, my answer to the liberal administration and media's question, "What death panels?" is, "These death panels - the ones you say are going to be necessary, and such a good idea."
So, the lesson for today: when liberals say they've never supported something, and would never even consider it, double-check your facts. There's more than a snowball's chance they didn't feel that way a couple years, even a couple months ago, before they realized how much the general public hates their best ideas. And it's always so much more fun to nail them with their own websites.
That is all,
Andrew
As I listen to the national debate on healthcare, I'm completely amazed by some of the lies propagated, not only by the administration, but also by the media. For an example from the president himself, read this: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/12/barack-obama/obama-has-praised-single-payer-plans-past/. And, of course, the mainstream media didn't fact-check, somebody else had to find the video for them. But it gets even worse!
In the break room at a teaching site in Phoenix, Arizona, I watched the anchors on MSNBC completely flame the right, asking if people would put up with these scare tactics, talking about "death panels" and the like. The response from both the administration AND the media has been, "What death panels?" "What are you talking about?" But I knew the truth: I have been talking with friends and family about this issue since before "death panel" became a popular term. Why? Because I read about it, in mid-July, on the New York Times website. Read it: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=5.
Now, this guy, Peter Singer, is Australian, but he is also professor of bioethics at Princeton, and he's writing here in the Times. It becomes fairly obvious from a brief scan of his wikipedia page that he's very liberal, and we all know the Times is, too. In any case, my answer to the liberal administration and media's question, "What death panels?" is, "These death panels - the ones you say are going to be necessary, and such a good idea."
So, the lesson for today: when liberals say they've never supported something, and would never even consider it, double-check your facts. There's more than a snowball's chance they didn't feel that way a couple years, even a couple months ago, before they realized how much the general public hates their best ideas. And it's always so much more fun to nail them with their own websites.
That is all,
Andrew
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)