BOLIVARIAN POPULIST DEMAGOGUERY AND THE ONE PARTY SYSTEMThe nation’s top economic officials argue for broad (unconstitutional?) powers to take over financial giants. President Chaves....er, I mean Obama agreed saying that "he hoped it didn't take too long to convince the politburo... uh ...congress.
Treasury Secretary Tim "Taxes" Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben "burn the banks" Bernanke said "The messy federal intervention into American International Group, an insurance giant, demonstrated a need to regulate complex nonbank financial institutions". Which is kind of funny, because I thought the “messy federal intervention” demonstrated a need to regulate government, not private corporations?
The rationale being used to justify the "power to take over nonbank financial institutions", that of risk to the national economy, can just as easily be used to justify takeover nonfinancial institutions such as GM, Microsoft, or ExxonMobil. I am no more inclined to invest in an American company subject to nationalization than a Venezuelan one, which is something our Bolivarian economic leaders ought to consider.
One of the core principals of the Constitution, that of the "separation of, and limitation of powers", seems to be at a greater risk today than in the past 222 years. The basic principal behind the checks and balances of the constitution remain the same today as they were when it was written; government is not to be trusted. Our founding fathers greatest fear was of tyranny and set up our rules of government specifically to prevent it. If you are 100% behind the current administration consider this: That the precedents that weaken the limitations of the power of the federal government will remain long after the current administration is gone. This will hold true through subsequent administrations of both liberal and conservative inclinations.
Meanwhile, the administration continues to play the blame shell game trying to shift things around too fast for the public to follow: "First of all, I suspect that some of those Republican critics have a short memory, because, as I recall, I'm inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit, annual deficit, from them. That would be point number one." Overlooking the fact that the budget is ultimately the responsibility of congress , point granted, the current administration has inherited debt from the previous administration, as most American administrations have done. In one breath Obama blames the Bush administration for the deficit, while in another when questioned on his budget acknowledges that the budget is a legislative document "Now, we never expected, when we printed out our budget, that they would simply Xerox it and vote on it. We assume that it has to go through the legislative process. I have not yet seen the final product coming out of the Senate or the House."
In another smoke and mirrors gambit, when questioned concerning the projected deficit resulting from his proposed budget, Obama deflects the question turning it instead into an argument over whether or not projected growth will be 2.2% or 2.6% while ignoring the fact that no matter which figure is used his future deficit will be no less than 7 Trillion dollars. Meanwhile, we've identified 40 Billion in savings in Defense Department procurement, CONGRATULATIONS!, only 6 Trillion 960 Billion more to go!
To add insult to injury, while the executive branch looks to seize additional power by exploiting public anger over 162 Million in previously contracted executive bonuses (honestly, the equivalent of finding you were short changed a few cents at the store when you are talking Trillions... are you really gonna drive back?), our esteemed Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said Geithner should get credit for trying to fix the financial system: “That’s the real issue. And at least he’s grappling with that”. I got news for you... Vladimir Ilyich Lenin was only trying to fix his country's financial system too.
And while you’re at it B....uh, Mitch, try this:
op·po·si·tion: (ŏp'ə-zĭsh'ən) A political party or an organized group opposed to the group, party, or government in power.
Might I remind you of your own party’s platform? "Constrain the federal government to its legitimate constitutional functions. Let it empower people, while limiting its reach into their lives. Spend only what is necessary, and tax only to raise revenue for essential government functions."
You are not losing the conservative base you morons, you are utterly repulsing it.
~Finntann~
Treasury Secretary Tim "Taxes" Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben "burn the banks" Bernanke said "The messy federal intervention into American International Group, an insurance giant, demonstrated a need to regulate complex nonbank financial institutions". Which is kind of funny, because I thought the “messy federal intervention” demonstrated a need to regulate government, not private corporations?
The rationale being used to justify the "power to take over nonbank financial institutions", that of risk to the national economy, can just as easily be used to justify takeover nonfinancial institutions such as GM, Microsoft, or ExxonMobil. I am no more inclined to invest in an American company subject to nationalization than a Venezuelan one, which is something our Bolivarian economic leaders ought to consider.
One of the core principals of the Constitution, that of the "separation of, and limitation of powers", seems to be at a greater risk today than in the past 222 years. The basic principal behind the checks and balances of the constitution remain the same today as they were when it was written; government is not to be trusted. Our founding fathers greatest fear was of tyranny and set up our rules of government specifically to prevent it. If you are 100% behind the current administration consider this: That the precedents that weaken the limitations of the power of the federal government will remain long after the current administration is gone. This will hold true through subsequent administrations of both liberal and conservative inclinations.
Meanwhile, the administration continues to play the blame shell game trying to shift things around too fast for the public to follow: "First of all, I suspect that some of those Republican critics have a short memory, because, as I recall, I'm inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit, annual deficit, from them. That would be point number one." Overlooking the fact that the budget is ultimately the responsibility of congress , point granted, the current administration has inherited debt from the previous administration, as most American administrations have done. In one breath Obama blames the Bush administration for the deficit, while in another when questioned on his budget acknowledges that the budget is a legislative document "Now, we never expected, when we printed out our budget, that they would simply Xerox it and vote on it. We assume that it has to go through the legislative process. I have not yet seen the final product coming out of the Senate or the House."
In another smoke and mirrors gambit, when questioned concerning the projected deficit resulting from his proposed budget, Obama deflects the question turning it instead into an argument over whether or not projected growth will be 2.2% or 2.6% while ignoring the fact that no matter which figure is used his future deficit will be no less than 7 Trillion dollars. Meanwhile, we've identified 40 Billion in savings in Defense Department procurement, CONGRATULATIONS!, only 6 Trillion 960 Billion more to go!
To add insult to injury, while the executive branch looks to seize additional power by exploiting public anger over 162 Million in previously contracted executive bonuses (honestly, the equivalent of finding you were short changed a few cents at the store when you are talking Trillions... are you really gonna drive back?), our esteemed Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said Geithner should get credit for trying to fix the financial system: “That’s the real issue. And at least he’s grappling with that”. I got news for you... Vladimir Ilyich Lenin was only trying to fix his country's financial system too.
And while you’re at it B....uh, Mitch, try this:
op·po·si·tion: (ŏp'ə-zĭsh'ən) A political party or an organized group opposed to the group, party, or government in power.
Might I remind you of your own party’s platform? "Constrain the federal government to its legitimate constitutional functions. Let it empower people, while limiting its reach into their lives. Spend only what is necessary, and tax only to raise revenue for essential government functions."
You are not losing the conservative base you morons, you are utterly repulsing it.
~Finntann~
2 comments:
Well said. Chavez abuses the reputation of Simon Bolivar. He was not a socialist.
Our government maumauing citizens into acting according to its narrow set of acceptable behaviors is unnerving.
Did you see NY AG Cuomo patting the AIG workers on the head for returning their bonuses like good little subjects? After two weeks of threatening them with legal action although they broke no laws, he congratulated them on "doing the right thing."
This could have been scripted by Orwell...
"This whole AIG fiasco -- where the entire political class is suddenly screaming over bonuses paid to derivative traders in AIG's financial-products division -- is just a complete farce. What it really shows is how the government has completely bungled the AIG takeover. Blame the Bush administration and the Obama administration. It also shows, once again, why the government shouldn't run anything, because it cannot run anything." --economist Lawrence Kudlow
i love larry's quote, mostly b/c it's similar to one of my own favorites..."gov't can't do anything well."
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.