The few trillion Obama may be allowed to borrow and spend to fix the Republican’s mess pales in comparison to the five and one half trillion Bush added to the national debt, and the OVER one trillion per year Bush added to the national budget deficit.

Those figures for Bush don’t even include the long-term costs of Bush’s War, the medical care for the soldiers fighting Bush’s War, nor the long-term interest on all of Bush’s debt!

Unfortunately, Bush and the Republicans held the reins during a crucial period for our country, when warning after warning was emerging about systemic failures in almost every part of the economy, but they stuck to their pig-headed philosophy that tax breaks and the free market will solve any potential problems.

This philosophy served well the pockets of them and their wealthy patrons and freinds, but left the rest of the country in a pile of manure.

THANK YOU OBAMA!
I can hardly believe the luck that we finally have a president who is bravely tackling the wealthiest, most influential individuals and corporations in America. They have bought and sold America, and finally they may pay something closer to their fair share.

OBAMA’S TENTATIVE BUDGET IS THE BEST THING FOR AVERAGE AMERICANS TO HAPPEN IN DECADES!

No one knows whether or not the stimulus is a good idea, and neither do I… for all we know, it may be the best thing for our economic woes, or it may just put us into debt while preventing any part of our economy from finding equilibrium with some new world realities.

Regardless of the stimulus, however, OBAMA’S BUDGET PLANS SHOW WE FINALLY HAVE A PRESIDENT WHO IS TRULY WILLING TO PUT HIMSELF AND HIS LEGACY ON THE LINE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS!

Does anybody know….?

Everybody says that it is “illegal” (not only immoral) to lend money if the Lender knows (sure or slightly?) that the Lendee cannot pay the borrowed money back.

According to what law (section/chapter?) this practice is illegal? Does anybody know the specifics?
Truth in Landing? Fair Credit Act? State Laws?

Thank you

Question To The Guests:

Why can’t the Government give guidelines to the Judges…whoever has under water mortgage contract and believe that they were lied to or the contract was misrepresented, should come forward and see the Judge.

Without nullifying or altering the Contract, the Judge should postpone the payments 1-3 years based on the degree of deception. If the Mortgage holding company or Servicer has something to say, they can show up during the brief hearing; but the burden of proof should be on them.

Piece of cake. The Courts (with some help) can handle cases and loads of files very easily. It is their job.

Foreclosers come to a halt, without any taxpayer money.
Sleezebags will get a lesson, so that they will not do this again. Bottom of the Economic Spectrum will get huge relief, and the scumbags in the middle and at the top will get screwed temporarily. And Goldman’s Stock will go down 4% – big deal!

Where is the Moral Hazard here?

So the government will bet more of our money by converting preferred to common shares – trading off priority for an elimination of dividends during the government’s holding periods.

What are the taxpayers getting in return? What are the senior executives giving up? How about Payment in Kind
on the preferred?

Thank you

It’s just dizzying about the extremely bleak situation we and the world are in.

I would like to know if the guests know anyone who has a handle about the mess? When one reads article after article about the next financial leg to cave (credit card debt, pensions, life insurance companies, corporate and sovereign bonds) where does it end?

How can the Washington elites continue to do their manueverings and strategies as if we are in normal times or that things will get better in the near future?

Are we heading for a modern dark ages?

Clive Crook was misleading, perhaps unintentionally, about the corporations and the top 5% earners shouldering all of the tax burden.

Certainly this will be true in the short run, as the current tax cut mix is intended as a stimulative measure, and is also trying to correct inequities in the tax system… Obama himself, however, has stated that in the long run and when the economy recovers somewhat, the debt will need to be paid down and across the board tax increases will be likely.

Bush should have been taking advantage of the high GDP we had during his tenure, paying down the debt and planning for the future… instead he spent like madman and made no accommodations whatever for our future.

We are experiencing an existential crisis. The question of how to get to the other side goes to the heart of who we feel we are as Americans, what defines us, how we self-identify.

Our American form of what I call “extreme capitalism” has accomplished a lot, no question. But it has spun out and shown itself to be a human idea, meaning it has flaws. The question of how to fix it invokes the spectre of “Europeanism” and is being used to scare the intellectually vulnerable. There is a way to improve our system without becoming a copy of theirs.

Facts: if we want to be a civilized country that continues to lead the world forward, it’s going to cost a little more than we’re used to, because we’ve been hiding from some of the costs for a long time – the hidden costs of bad energy policy, the social cost of inequitable health care policy, and the fiscal cost of bad tax policy.

Liberals continue to blame Bush but BHO is going to spend even more. Don’t forget that deregulation can be traced back to Clinton, Frank, and Dodd. Nothing is too big to fail, and we are walking the road to national bankrupcy. Someone on the radio show today, a BHO campaign activist, was talking about raising wages. What a joke. Where do you think those wages are coming from after the tax hikes on those who create jobs? The only extra money you will get will be in entitlements.

As perhaps the lone conservative listener to show today I would like to make a few counter points to the discussion on the budget and its implications. First, while the some of the New Deal gave us some of the safety nets we enjoy today, it did not get us out of the economic malaise of the Great Depression. In 1938, five long years into it, the unemployment rate was still hovering around 25%. The build up to WWII and the deployment of tens of thousands of working age men to the military (and out of the work force) finally got us out.

Raising taxes on the richest of us sounds good, but what are the unintended consequences? Many of those are small business people who plow their a portion of that income back into their businesses. When their taxes go up, will they add that new technology, will they be able to add another person to help grown the business, will they be able to give raises to their employees? Will they perhaps cut back on some of their household help (all hard working class people who will now be out of work). This is why I do not believe this budget will create full employment and more tax revenue ten years from now. Who can predict out that far anyway?

What about the cap and trade revenue that is projected? Who, exactly will really have to pay. Everyone in terms of higher gas and electric prices. Well that’s good, right; we will conserve and help the planet. True, but then the revenues will not be as strong as rosily projected in the budget. Who will this hurt the most? My guess is that there will be programs to help the truly poor with their higher heating bills, and the upper middle class and rich will be able to absorb the higher cost (just do not expect them to invest in the economy!). So it falls on the working class in the form of higher household costs, just when they are seeing no wage growth (especially if their employer is unable to raise incomes because of his or her higher tax burden).

I am not optimistic that this budget will help our economy or our nation as a whole and in fact will prolong this recession.

Mary’s got it. I agree with her, Pelosi and Reid are serious problems for Obama, maybe worse than the Repuglicans.

For those of you not familiar with Louisiana politics:

Jindal, in his speech touted two “success” stories:

Ethics reform, but he failed to note that he exempted the governor’s office from the reforms, and the legislature raised the standard of proof in ethics cases so there will be far fewer, not more prosecutions.

Tax cuts, but he failed to note that he came into office with a surplus, which he promptly gave away, and now with lower oil prices, and federal storm aid declining, the state has a massive deficit which must result in cutting education an health care because other budget items are protected.

I’m in favor of President Obama’s decision to “seize the moment” on our nation’s many challenges. I liken it to putting off buying grocery items on schedule (by plan). When you put off buying things week after week, very soon the time comes when you need EVERYTHING to run your household effectively and the bill to bring things back into line runs high. That’s where our nation is right now. We’ve put off planning and scheduled purchases of many of theimportant things that make a nation function. It’s come time to pay an expensive bill. I’m so happy to have President Obama in office to require that the sacrifice be spread so that EVERYONE contributes to his/her ability.

“‘Emergencies’ have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded.”
Friedrich August von Hayek

I can not be the only person who thinks it uproariously laughable, not to mention hypocritical, for so many Republican law makers, who supported 8 years of the fiscally irresponsible policies of President Bush, to lambast President Obama’s monetary/budget proposals as too much spending. Why have I not heard one commentator ask about their turn-about?

Anne,
Going into WWII did get us back into shape… it necessitated huge military spending at a time when we were broke and got us hugely into more debt.

Also, “the deployment of tens of thousands of working age men to the military (and out of the work force)” simply led to a massive labor shortage when we needed to ramp up industrial production for war spending.

What turned things around were the post-war circumstances. We were the most capable industrial nation left standing at a time when almost every other industrial nation needed to rebuild. Our economy and industrial capacity was the primary engine that kicked off post-war recovery, and our nation quickly took advantage of the situation, both strategically and economically.

FDR’s policies kicked in too late to make a quick difference to the economy, but they put into place the industrial and extraction capabilities and the ethics of determination that allowed the U.S. to become a key WWII ally against the Axis powers and ultimately allowed us to take advantage of post war opportunities.

Anne,
Sorry! that should have read

“Going into WWII did NOT get us back into shape…”

That WWII labor shortage in America required millions of women to enter the work force for the first time… not a bad fringe benefit in the long run!

Republicans are not blameless and need to return to conservative principles. Their “turn-about” is a breath of fresh air, unlike BHO’s “change” platform.

Fact: US taxes plus health care costs EXCEED the European tax burden. Thus, to characterize any US shift to the European high-tax model makes no sense.

Moreover, the European outcomes for health care are better than ours, for all the propaganda otherwise: poor people in England live longer and better than the wealthiest in the US.

Whatever we do, we have to lower the 30% premium for profit and administration that our private “system” of health care taxes.

US Companies BENEFIT from health care: their largest expense in labor is training and hiring workers. Health care is like oil to a machine: necessary for continued operation.

Those so-called “legacy” benefits were the workers’ deferred wages and THE WORKERs’ due money.

Miscellaneous Note: Careful for those who blanket support Obama: remember how ridiculous was the Bushies blind support.

Answer to the above query: in 2007 or 2008, the Fed Reserve and Fannie Mae issued regulations specifying respectively that loans or mortgages they bought must demonstrate reasonable ability to repay. Those paltry regs may be in addition to some law, but I doubt it. If anything,but I’m not a lawyer, “contract law” on promissory notes might govern.

If FDR’s policies kicked in too late, will we have to also endure another lost decade before this new deal works? What will bring us out? Since we are already fighting two wars, it doesn’t look like that will do it. The stimulus package is more like a relief package with very little stimulus and a lot of pork. In late 80’s, prominent economists predicted a dire decade ahead, which of course was dead wrong. What they did not predict was the explosion of technology. I believe that the groundwork that Regan did in the 80’s allowed capital to flow and businesses to grow. Microsoft was once a small business! Clinton encouraged this as well, mostly in his second term, where he had to due to the Republican majority in congress. He really looked more like a moderate Republican, lowing taxes, lowering regulation, and reforming welfare! My deep concern is this stimulus package and this budget sucks capital from the private sector and therefore true job creation and that we will have created a generation of people demanding fish instead of fishing for themselves.

“Those so-called “legacy” benefits were the workers’ deferred wages and THE WORKERs’ due money.” Agreed. Though akin to a ponsi scheme, it’s the system we have. We’re paying for those who went before. Just want to make sure that, when it’s my turn, I (at least) get what I paid in.

“Miscellaneous Note: Careful for those who blanket support Obama: remember how ridiculous was the Bushies blind support. ”

No chance of that. I analyze each initiative on its aims/terms and, then, decide whether I agree or not. Though, support (blind or measured) of fundamentally-sound principles (that benefit the masses and not the few) is necessary to get anything on the road to implementation around here. Let’s face it. It’s time to remake America. I’m tired of the folks who are resting on their laurels. The leaves have dried up and fallen off the branches. Obama’s ideas and aims are drafted to re-invigorate our country. We need to get behind our President and move our collective ship forward. It’ll take years and we’re late getting started.

Every economist I have heard compare modern circumstances to the Great Depression says the same thing:
Hoover took to long to act, and the main difference between then and now is the Fed’s quicker, more active role.

Personally, as to the stimulus, I agree with a post a friend of mine made recently:

“I’m not sure whether the stimulus or the bailouts are worth doing. Lately I’m leaning towards believing they are a bad idea. Much of American business, the legislation affecting it, and the American way of life seems backward, and maybe a complete overhaul of everything is in order.

The trick is how to minimize the true suffering. I believe most should be brought to earth in terms of living standards, but many already fallen or low stand to lose their dignity or worse. The amount of money that’s being tendered for this whole mess, some two trillion and growing for bailouts and stimulus (not including interest), could instead help the destitute for the decade or so it might take for reality to sort everything out. The rest of us could maybe rough it, so to speak.

I think perhaps it’s a bad idea to preserve such a screwed up and anachronistic status quo, and we might all be better off in the long run if things are allowed to take a sort of brutal course of natural selection.

The whole bundle is likely sufficient money that a few other real necessities might also be funded or better funded; education, mass transit, and green technology.
Since crime and poverty are the biggest threats we would face from letting commerce sort itself out naturally, and since high gas prices will surely return soon, funding for the destitute, education, and mass transit would be paramount… funding for green technology is just a good idea and would help temper the environmental impact of cost-cutting measures that would result from a compromised economy.

This alternate idea of how to use the two trillion might have saved us from civil unrest and too much suffering, while perhaps saving several hundred billion of the two trillion as well… too late now certainly, as the course was already set long ago by Bush and an all too accommodating Congress under both parties.”

Why are the Obamagasmics so reluctant to admit that the “tax breaks for the rich” were also tax breaks and enhanced income for millions of lower and middle class pensioners and others of modest means who relied on various dividend income to get by?

Tiger,
Is that a joke?

As we now know all too well, what “enhanced income for millions of lower and middle class pensioners and others of modest means who relied on various dividend income to get by,” was artificially inflated stock and home values.

The wealth of the last decade was wholly an illusion, based on stock values trading at dozens or even hundreds of times earnings (as opposed to a reasonable few times earnings), and based on home values surging due to mortgage-backed securities shenanigans.

All of that “wealth” has now evaporated back into the ether, from whence it came.

This country is now right back where it was ten years ago in terms of wealth, but now we have many more people to feed with the same size pie.

Pablum. Yummy! There’s plenty to go around. Let’s feed the world.

Jindal annoys me.

He’s all like, ‘The past eight years? Come on, just forget about that baby, I’ve changed.’

Ah, so elephants do forget. Well we know that a tiger cannot change its spots.

It’s really too bad that there wasn’t a single right of center commentator to speak the conservative position on these issues. It’s too bad most of all because Obama supporters are woefully ignorant of US history & economic policy; and BO depends upon their lack of knowledge to push his “European style” agenda through.

The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. The government gets money from two places, it prints it and it gets it. If the government just prints money to pay the bills, the value of the currency becomes worthless. The only other way is me and you. Lets tax those sorry rich people. According to what I am hearing they all must be crooks and deserving of a good fleecing. One problem, you could tax all top 2 percent of them 100% and still not come up with enough to pay this bill. That leaves me and you. The middle class will eventually pay,it will come in other forms. The problem we are in is one of supply and demand. We the voting public want many things,our wish list is long. The “I need your vote” government will supply you with what you want. Our needs are growing and our problems are not going to go away. We want the government to give us a job, an education, a new house, a new car, food on the table, health care, a monthly income, where to live, how to drive my car, who to associate with, who will be rich and who will be poor and who will foot the bill and who will not. Yes Americans, we are a government of the people and by the people. The government will give as it always has and we the people will pay as we always have. Money does not grow on trees. No matter who is in office, Dems or Repubs, they will all come after your money. Until we all learn to live within our means, the day of reckoning is still coming.

To Tom Ashbrook,
A caller said you were a great radio host. That points up my one criticsm of your show : you talk way too much. You are so smart,and your so deft in handling the issues, guests, callers, etc, and also you have a great, nice welcoming personality. Will you marry me! But seriously, you reinterpret, rephrase every caller’s question –totally unecessary–interferes with the show! The questions are usually clear–can’t you just let the guests respond? They lack enough time to fully explain their responses as it is, especially now you include many audio clips–these are a waste of time, because we listeners have heard them by now, and are sick of them!
Can’t you go back to the old way, and not have clips? And won’t you consider curtailing your talkiness. You could just utter a thought once. Then stop. Don’t rephrase it. We love you, but not that much.Thanks.

It is annoying to hear Beatty’s shrill and misinformed view of “China owning us.” Even worse, Crook backs him.
Both might want to enroll in a basic economics course to understand why this nationalistic hype is without merit.

Have you ever lived in Europe??
I don’t think so! Sure they have problems, but they are in average much more happy and secure socially. They don’t worship wealth like in the US.Labor and management are in a partnership for wealth creation(Human capital and money capital are inseparable in job creation) Different philosophy, different concept more egalitarian.No plantation mentality in the workplace,less hours, but guess what? More productivity believe it or not. The french”joie de vivre” is legendary and contagious!The aversion of unions by a lot of people in the US, has is root in slavery,religion(God gives! so if you’re rich you are blessed!!!) and more recently in the skilful brainwatching of the rich-owned media.They take loans(our money!)from their friends(bankers)for all kind of ventures with practically no risk to their personal fortune and they own most of the politicians.After stealing, they made themselves incontrovertible, milking the system one’s more on the bailout money.
This capitalism need a little socializing for it to survive!

Nice call, Wavre!

Tokyo Tom, you’re quite correct sir.

Wavre – yes, I have lived extensively in Europe – most of my family lives in France & England. You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about. France is not more “egalitarian” – it is FAR less so; the people are not “happier” in any way that you conceive of that term; my sister-in-law is a consultant to help workplaces improve because they are often horribly inefficient and authoritarian; the hospitals are atrocious; and yes, politicians everywhere are “owned,” as you say – do you think this changes when a country becomes more socialist? No, it gets worse; and very much to the detriment of the country. Start thinking Wavre – and stop wallowing in wishful thinking about what Europe is really like.

Don’t sweat it!
Health care WILL be socialized in this country… that’s just the way it is.
Profit motive in health care is simply a failed, insane system. We’re about to run out of General Practitioners and Pediatricians in the U.S., because our system rewards specialists and their gimmicky machines at the expense of responsible health care.
What’s more, aside from the pharmaceutical and insurance industries, and many physicians who are specialists, business in the U.S. is pushing more and more for universal care so they can compete effectively in world markets.

JP, you know very well I’m sure that there isn’t anything like a “market” in American healthcare today. We have a bizarre system that needs to be changed – yes. But I don’t see how decreasing accountability (i.e., socialism) is the direction to go in.

China owning us

Jack Beaty is right. If Chinese Governement gives one speech, questioning our ability to pay; … guess what?
You will lose sleep that night.

I would like to comment on three issues discussed on the show.

1. Increasing taxes on the wealthy, and on coporations was tried in 1932 by FDR.

2. Creating government agencies (NRA, WPA, etcetera) and doubling the size of the federal government in order to put Americans back to work was tried in 1932 by FDR.

3. Increasing the power of the unions, while vilifying the corporations that were employing the workers was tried in 1932 by FDR.

FDRs own Secretary of Treasury, Henry Morgenthau III commented that after doubling the size of the government, and taking over significant portions of the commerce of the United States, unemployment in 1940 remained near 20% and the DOW was still trading in the same range it was at in 1930.

The comment made by Jack Beatty about the union worker being more “productive” is nothing but tripe. I would love to see where he got his statistics from. I have worked in union environments most of my life, both in the union, and in management. The unions I have worked for and with had absolutely no interest in increasing productivity. His comment about the profitablility of unionized companies loses all validity if you simply look at Detroit. Take a look at the states that have been hit the hardest in this crisis, Michigan and California — strong union states. Take a look at the states that have fared the best The Carolinas, Georgia, Tennessy, right to work states. The state of Connecticut where I live and work, has lost hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs as factory after factory closed down and left to avoid the workplace obstructions put in place by the union. It is not even about wages, it is about “work rules” that handcuff the business and prevent them from being able to have the flexibility required to meet customer demands. When I was a union employee, my “fellow workers” came to me and told me to “slow down” because I was making the rest of the crew look bad. I can tell you that it was not a friendly conversation, not to mention that there was a strong connection of the union to the Gambino crime organization.

I listen to these radio shows and find myself screeming at the radio saying, how can people be so ingorant of history and common sense.

Sam, really great post! I’m hoping that most Americans are like you: common sense and relevant experience to know nonsense when they hear it.

Thank you to all of the conservatives that have contributed comments without being nasty, condescending, sneering, etc. (Anne Nichols is a good example!) I am not a conservative but I am open to ideas and always looking to challenge my own positions and beliefs. I’m sorry to say that it seems exceptional to find, in today’s public forums, civilized conservatives – why all the name-calling? If you’re comfortable in your knowledge, why not just explain and justify your positions and leave it at that?

According to government stats from 1940 the unemployment rate was 14.6% not near 20. It was 20.1 in 1935.

Government was the last resort in the great depression. The reason is grew was because they were the only ones hiring. You spin these stats any way to make it seem that the conservative view point is right and the left is wrong. However look at what we have now, we had about 30 years of Reaganomics, which seems to have failed. The last 8 years the republicans were in charge and they spent like kids in a candy store. Bush took us from being in the black to huge deficits. He started two wars without asking for sacrifice, which in times of war means raising taxes or selling bonds or both.

I have said this before, there are plenty of democrat’s who are to blame for this mess as well, namley the wall street crowd.

The party is over, low taxation and no regulation has failed. Have not noticed that? Are you paying attention?

Hover did nothing and the unemployment level when he left office in 1933 24.9 and the level of under employment was close to 25%. By 1937 unemployment dropped to about 14.3%. Clearly something was working here, you have to be in complete denial not to see this. Was it perfect, no, nothing in life and politics is.

As far as unions are concerned, like everything else some are good and some are awful. The bottom line for me is that workes should have the right to orginize, period.

We have tried supply side for over 25 years and it seems to have failed. So has IRA’a, which originally were designed to help with a pension and social security for retirement, not to be the main source of income.

Clearly something has gone wrong, very wrong and just standing around and point fingers and blaming FDR wont work.

Jeffe,

You are correct, I was incorrect, unemployment in 1940 was around 14%. However, in 1938 it was still at 19 percent, after 6 years of intense government intervention in the free market system. The fact is that FDRs own treasury secretary was very dismayed at the results of years of spending and regulating.

Your comment about low taxation and low regulation is not applicable. We did not have low taxation and low regulation during the Bush administration. The banks were regulated by policies started by the Clinton administration, and continued by Bush, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and company, which forced them to make loans to people that had no business receiving them. Every place the government has attempted to regulate a better solution for our country has been a failure.

Over the history of this country, no matter what tax rate was imposed on which income level citizen, the maximum amount of revenue collected has averaged around 18 percent of GDP. If you increase the tax on the wealthy, they will simply find tax shelters to hide their earnings, or they will stop making investments in this country to earn more. Jimmy Carter increased taxes on the wealthy and tax revenues declined. Reagan decreased taxes on the wealthy and tax revenues increased. Reagan’s biggest failure was that although he dramatically slowed the growth of government, he was unable to reduce it in size. When Bush reduced taxes on the wealthy, tax revenues increased as well. The only problem was the Bush was not fiscally conservative by any definition.
The problem with our current tax system is that whenever anybody, Democrat or Republican, says that they are going to tax the rich, my taxes go up. Most of the time because congress closes all kinds of deductions for middle class taxpayers, but you never hear about that part of the process. All of the politicians and their lobyist friends have millions of ways to shelter and hide their income. Meanwhile the poor don’t pay taxes anyway, so at the end of the day middle class working Americans are stuck with the bill.

If you think that more regulation will get us out of this, I ask you to explain how it is that Chris Dodd, who was supposed to be in charge of the Banking Committee, and overseeing the likes of Fanny May, Countrywide and Freddie Mac, received the most campaign contributions from those institutions, received favorable loans from Countrywide, and in 2007 said that all of them were in great shape. The Banking committee had oversight over all of these institutions, and when some people challenged that there were serious problems with the system in 2007, they were beaten down by the likes of Maxine Waters, Chris Dodd, and others who said that everything was just fine. Regulation got us into this situation, it will not get us out.

David

You’re out of luck on this one.Where do you think my pseudo “wavre” comes from?It’s city in belgium(Brabant)where i spent years.I’ve lived in Europe Half of my life!From my first grade in elementary school up to my last year in high-school. I will not bore you with my life story”mais je connais l’Europpe comme le fond de ma poche”and i wonder what Europe your family members have been living in.I’m not denying the imperfections and inequalities that exist, but in comparaison one have to admit that the European social safety nest is stronger and more egalitarian.The documentary “Sicko” is very acurate on this particular topic.

The strenght of the unions in Europe has help to keep the politicians from too much eroding people’s basic rights(health,food,work and shelter).The main problem in our governments is that the people who makes decisions are rarely those who are impacted by those decisions.They want to restrict social security benefits,calling those programs”entitlements”. Although we pay into them, they make them sound like handouts!(unfunded mandates??)
They have money, they don’t care, they will never need that safety nest.They have “manufactured” a concensus in the media saying that those programs are the main cause of our future financial demise.But when it comes to the financial system, where they have invested interests, a bailout with no accountability is the only solution!
David i know you have enjoyed your first class cabin, but it’s time to get out and swim, the Titanic of unregulated capitalism is sinking!!

Capitalism is not sinking, it has sunk.

I’ve been saying this for years:
Capitalism is already a proven failure!

In a model where resources are unlimited, regulated capitalism works nicely and may even be the most desireable system.

The problem is that resources ARE limited while there is a desire to maintain quality of life for present and future generations.

The nature of capitalism is that it requires crisis in order to function properly.

For instance, people want a resource, oil:
Supply and demand dictate that supply will ramp up to meet demand, eventually exceeding it; then oversupply reduces price, and people can even better afford oil; Supply ramps up further to meet the increased demand; the cycle repeats.
This system ensures that the resource, oil, will be used up as quickly as possible, and the cycle is not curbed until supply can no longer meet demand due to forced scarcity.

This model is the same for all resources, including: wood, water, extracted resources, food, etc…

CAPITALISM ENSURES A RACE TO SCARCITY FOR EVERYTHING!

Despite millennia of human history, only a few recent generations of man has managed to consume as much as 70% of the worlds easily recoverable resources, resources being defined as all that which is recovered for use by man.

CAPITALISM ENSURES A RACE TO CRISIS BEFORE PROBLEMS CAN BE SOLVED!

Too much pollution? Eventually Capitalism will ensure that excessive pollution is addressed… but not until it is fully acknowledged as already a severe problem.
Global climate change? Sure, Capitalism force a change to better behavior, but not until the problem reaches crisis level.
Enron? Bad toys from China? Bad pet food? Mortgage-backed securities? Tech bubbles? Capitalism has self-regulating mechanisms which will see to it that all of these problems are addressed… but not until each demonstrates that it has reached a crisis level.

This incredibly selfish wastfulness by a few generations of humanity is the direct result of the success of capitalist economies.
Success, yes… but only a few generations reap the rewards of success at the expense of all future generations.

Capitalism has many virtues, not the least of which is a drive towards progress and innovation, but the instinct for preservation of the species will soon have to be weighed against certain types of human “progress.”

Unless man’s intention is that there be no regard for the future of humanity and much of creation, then Capitalism, regulated or not, is the worst of all societal systems.
It is a race towards (and thus always ensures) scarcity and crisis.

David, I also put a lot of blame on some of the Democrat’s.
Dodd is on top of my list as is Schumer, Frank is trying to have it both ways. However blaming Fannie and Freddie for the downturn is absurd. It was how the sub-prime loans were bundled with good loans and sold as triple A rated securities that is the main culprit.

FDR’s programs worked, they might not have worked as well as people wanted, and if your a stanch small government conservative I’m sure that even the kind of toilet paper FDR used would come under scrutiny.

What I mean by regulation is that I think the banks, such as Bank of America and Morgan Stanley should not be allowed to to what ever the hell they want to.

I also think it’s absurd that the companies(Standard and Poor’s is one example) that rate things such as securities should not be paid by the very companies that are trying to get the ratings. Conflict of interest.

As far as Reagen is concerned it way to simple to say that by him cutting taxes worked, while it did let more people keep money, the deficit soared. Property taxes went up and state and city taxes as well.

For some reason we seem to think in this country that we should get something for nothing. How do you people who do not want to pay taxes think we are to pay for trash collection, fire departments, police, street cleaning, road repair, snow removal, schools. If we keep lowering the taxes then what?

My problem with Bush is he went to war without doing what a country should do, raise revenue to do so.
Instead his government borrowed all of it. This was bad public policy, period.

As far as the current crisis, I like all of the people posting here do not have any idea what is going to happen. We are in uncharted waters.

“Capitalism is not sinking, it has sunk. I’ve been saying this for years: Capitalism is already a proven failure!”

Insightful JP, you make it seem like you are among the first to recognize that capitalism has its flaws. Clearly the system is imperfect and as the recent financial crisis shows intelligent regulation is necessary to prevent the severe shocks that can occur in a more laissez-faire system. However, despite your critical view on the economic system I would challenge you to present a more effective one? The capitalist system can certainly stand to be improved, but its ability to stimulate innovation coupeled with the freedom it affords people to control their own lives makes it far superior to any sort of state planned system in my opinion.

I agree Capitalism is a desirable system; I’ve certainly enjoyed it. I’ve lived my 45 years in perhaps Capitalism’s great golden era, in one of the wealthiest countries on earth in the ultimate consumer society… WE USED IT ALL, MAN… WITHOUT A CARE!!!

Not a bad time and place to live… I’ve partied my ass off, I’ve traveled, and I burned green like there was no tomorrow. If Capitalism had to exist, I’m certainly glad I got to be in the right place at the peak.

First I need to rephrase my next to last sentence above, as it was ill considered.

Where I stated:
“Unless man’s intention is that there be no regard for the future of humanity and much of creation, then Capitalism, regulated or not, is the worst of all societal systems,”

I should have said:
“Unless man’s intention is that there be no regard for the future of humanity and much of creation, then Capitalism, regulated or not, is a system unsuited to the goal of maintaining quality of life for present and future generations.”

Obviously, it’s not “the worst of all societal systems,” and I should have proofread myself.

As to your query of “What then?”

I’ve never offered an alternative for Capitalism; I’ve only ever stated my case as to the failings of the system.

I can only offer the obvious: the alternative system would somehow have to manage resource use for sustainability of both the resource and the environment… short of that we lose an ultimate goal.

I hate to say it and I don’t condone it, but a workable system would likely have to be somewhat totalitarian. Resources would have to be rationed, population controlled, population centers carefully managed to optimize density and efficiency, land use allocated by plan, etc.

China has some answers as to how some of this might work, and so far as my knowledge goes, it’s not that pretty.

A system with such restrictions would make it tough for even limited Capitalism to work to much effect… the best one could hope might be to have some degree of guaranteed egalitarianism.

I’m definitely not Marxist, but Marxism sounds like it comes closest to something that might succeed at the goals of sustainability… a depressing thought, as I can’t see how humanity can evade such a system in the long run.

JP,

Capitalism for westerners has been very good all things considered since its birth five centuries ago!

But have you considered the negative impact on the rest of the world? From slavery to colonialism and today’s Globalization on the back of the “Third world”! This crisis is poetic justice for them.

I believe that the world is at a crossing road toward a global new system.Completely new paradigmes will emerge.Unrestrained materialism will decrease a great deal.The world is more and more a small village and Obama is viewed by a lot of people like the first leader of the entire world.The question is, is he ready to assume that role for a more sustainable system?
10% of world population can not control and consume 90% of the world ressources forever.

Those considerations can not be ignored as we are trying to conceive a better way forward.

Tom Ashbrook had his “thrill running up my leg” moment on this week’s show with his “hot diggity!” comment about Obama.

Here’s what I don’t get–These individuals, trained as journalists, are supposed to be inherently skeptical of those in power. However, Obama declares that he’s being more transparent and honest, and these people just accept it at face value. To be fair to Mr. Ashbrook, he pushed Ms. Halloran on whether the Obama budget is really honest, but she ignored the question, and he dropped it. Mr. Crook raised the point that perhaps the Obama budget really isn’t all that honest.

So my question is–Isn’t it WORSE to trumpet how open and honest you’re being, and then wind up not really being all that open and honest?!!

As for Mr. Beatty’s gushing over unions–He and anyone else is free to an opinion on unions and whether they’re good for workers and the US in general. However, I’m deeply disturbed by the fact that the union boosters are willing to overlook how the new law that Obama is sure to put in place will give union organizers the right to intimidate workers into signing cards. If I suggested that we conducted our presidential elections that way, Mr. Beatty would surely scoff. So why is it okay for unions to operate in that way? Why not just make the process so that the integrity of union elections is guaranteed and protected? (My hunch is that the unions and their supporters know that more shops will be unionized with the card fiasco, because of the pressure aspect. This really saddens me.)