Comments on: Did Even Obamas Supporters Expect Something This Radical? http://www.frumforum.com/did-even-obamas-supporters-expect-something-this-radical Building a conservatism that can win again Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:50:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: sinz54 http://www.frumforum.com/did-even-obamas-supporters-expect-something-this-radical/comment-page-1#comment-44854 sinz54 Fri, 13 Feb 2009 19:50:02 +0000 #comment-44854 larryo sez: "Deregulation has brought us to the place where all paths are fraught with peril, I fear." The original principle behind deregulation was sound: Remove barriers to competition and innovation, where those existed. And I supported that. Deregulation was not supposed to mean laissez-faire, anything-goes capitalism. And it was especially not supposed to mean corporate welfare for the politically well-connected. Unfortunately, some in Congress wrote in special favors for their favorite industries, and stuck a "DEREGULATION" label on it to disguise its real purpose. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, co-sponsored by Phil Gramm, was a perfect example of deregulation gone berserk. It included the "Enron loophole," which exempted commodity futures trading from regulation. That loophole was specifically put in there by Phil Gramm, at the behest of lobbyists for Enron, who rewarded Gramm by putting his wife on their board of directors. And we all know how that turned out. For deregulation to be done fairly, it needs to be done in a way that is open to public review, and is largely divorced from political pork. I draw an analogy with the Base Realignment and Closing Commission (BRAC), which is a process for closing unnecessary military bases that produces a list that first goes to the President (with all of the visibility that produces), and only then to Congress. larryo sez: “Deregulation has brought us to the place where all paths are fraught with peril, I fear.” The original principle behind deregulation was sound: Remove barriers to competition and innovation, where those existed. And I supported that. Deregulation was not supposed to mean laissez-faire, anything-goes capitalism. And it was especially not supposed to mean corporate welfare for the politically well-connected. Unfortunately, some in Congress wrote in special favors for their favorite industries, and stuck a “DEREGULATION” label on it to disguise its real purpose. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, co-sponsored by Phil Gramm, was a perfect example of deregulation gone berserk. It included the “Enron loophole,” which exempted commodity futures trading from regulation. That loophole was specifically put in there by Phil Gramm, at the behest of lobbyists for Enron, who rewarded Gramm by putting his wife on their board of directors. And we all know how that turned out. For deregulation to be done fairly, it needs to be done in a way that is open to public review, and is largely divorced from political pork. I draw an analogy with the Base Realignment and Closing Commission (BRAC), which is a process for closing unnecessary military bases that produces a list that first goes to the President (with all of the visibility that produces), and only then to Congress.

]]> By: sinz54 http://www.frumforum.com/did-even-obamas-supporters-expect-something-this-radical/comment-page-1#comment-47021 sinz54 Fri, 13 Feb 2009 19:19:06 +0000 #comment-47021 larry claims: "The Republicans opposed the stimulus package precisely because they were afraid it would work, and then how would they look!" Sir, that makes no sense whatsoever. The congressional Republicans knew they didn't have the votes to stop the stimulus package. Thus if they thought it was going to work, their best strategy would be to at least not seem to play a useless obstructionist or spoiler role. That way they wouldn't look short-sighted and reactionary after the stimulus package succeeded. (That is, in fact, precisely what David Frum had suggested.) The congressional Republicans opposed the stimulus package, because they really believe it's going to flop (and so do I). Thus they want to be able to say to the American people in a few years, "See? We warned you it wouldn't work." Which is exactly what I'm going to say to you, as the November 2010 congressional elections draw near. larry claims: “The Republicans opposed the stimulus package precisely because they were afraid it would work, and then how would they look!” Sir, that makes no sense whatsoever. The congressional Republicans knew they didn’t have the votes to stop the stimulus package. Thus if they thought it was going to work, their best strategy would be to at least not seem to play a useless obstructionist or spoiler role. That way they wouldn’t look short-sighted and reactionary after the stimulus package succeeded. (That is, in fact, precisely what David Frum had suggested.) The congressional Republicans opposed the stimulus package, because they really believe it’s going to flop (and so do I). Thus they want to be able to say to the American people in a few years, “See? We warned you it wouldn’t work.” Which is exactly what I’m going to say to you, as the November 2010 congressional elections draw near.

]]> By: larryo http://www.frumforum.com/did-even-obamas-supporters-expect-something-this-radical/comment-page-1#comment-46701 larryo Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:32:00 +0000 #comment-46701 "I think you quibble when you deprive me of the right to say that liberty, or our individual rights, were not a part of the Constitution," If you equate liberty with the Bill of Rights, I agree; The Bill of Rights was certainly intended to protect individual rights from government incursion. "it was my understanding that the Federal Reserve was under government control and in turn does print our own money etc. etc." That is the impression we have been given from the beginning. The truth is that it is a private consortium of banks in business for profit. It will not open its books for inspection, it loans us the money it prints at interest through a mechanism involving t-bills, and it does so in collusion with both Republican and Democratic members of the political class. Its manipulation of the money supply is what produces the boom-bust business cycle. This is a great deal of what is wrong with the economy. I agree wholeheartedly with your primary premise that the Republicans ought to let the Democrats run with the ball on the stimulus package - then we would see what's what. “I think you quibble when you deprive me of the right to say that liberty, or our individual rights, were not a part of the Constitution,” If you equate liberty with the Bill of Rights, I agree; The Bill of Rights was certainly intended to protect individual rights from government incursion. “it was my understanding that the Federal Reserve was under government control and in turn does print our own money etc. etc.” That is the impression we have been given from the beginning. The truth is that it is a private consortium of banks in business for profit. It will not open its books for inspection, it loans us the money it prints at interest through a mechanism involving t-bills, and it does so in collusion with both Republican and Democratic members of the political class. Its manipulation of the money supply is what produces the boom-bust business cycle. This is a great deal of what is wrong with the economy. I agree wholeheartedly with your primary premise that the Republicans ought to let the Democrats run with the ball on the stimulus package – then we would see what’s what.

]]> By: dstern http://www.frumforum.com/did-even-obamas-supporters-expect-something-this-radical/comment-page-1#comment-52487 dstern Fri, 13 Feb 2009 02:49:38 +0000 #comment-52487 Perhaps Republicans did oppose the stimulus because they thought it would work, but that is not the issue the point I wanted to make is that Republicans should have allowed the Democrats to do exactly as they wished to test the socialist hypothesis that government is responsible for the health of the economy, and that government intervention in terms of more government spending and a larger welfare state is the answer to the economic problems that we have. I appreciate you scolding me for my loose use of liberty and rugged individualism as original principles; nonetheless, I do think you would agree that a system of government mandated and mediated redistribution of income such as the welfare system, social security system or health care system was not specified by the Constitution. I take the absence of such Constitutional provisions to mean that the founders thought that people ought to make it on their own, or at least without government assistance in these matters; thus, I interpret this to be consistent with the principle of rugged individualism. Likewise, I think you quibble when you deprive me of the right to say that liberty, or our individual rights, were not a part of the Constitution, unless I am wrong to think that the Bill of Rights is not part of the Constitution. As far as the National Bank is concerned, I am not knowledgeable enough to argue with you as far as original intent. Original intent or not, I think we both believe the banking system as it stands is unsound. But it was my understanding that the Federal Reserve was under government control and in turn does print our own money etc. etc. Perhaps this is why we are in so much hot water. Perhaps Republicans did oppose the stimulus because they thought it would work, but that is not the issue the point I wanted to make is that Republicans should have allowed the Democrats to do exactly as they wished to test the socialist hypothesis that government is responsible for the health of the economy, and that government intervention in terms of more government spending and a larger welfare state is the answer to the economic problems that we have. I appreciate you scolding me for my loose use of liberty and rugged individualism as original principles; nonetheless, I do think you would agree that a system of government mandated and mediated redistribution of income such as the welfare system, social security system or health care system was not specified by the Constitution. I take the absence of such Constitutional provisions to mean that the founders thought that people ought to make it on their own, or at least without government assistance in these matters; thus, I interpret this to be consistent with the principle of rugged individualism. Likewise, I think you quibble when you deprive me of the right to say that liberty, or our individual rights, were not a part of the Constitution, unless I am wrong to think that the Bill of Rights is not part of the Constitution. As far as the National Bank is concerned, I am not knowledgeable enough to argue with you as far as original intent. Original intent or not, I think we both believe the banking system as it stands is unsound. But it was my understanding that the Federal Reserve was under government control and in turn does print our own money etc. etc. Perhaps this is why we are in so much hot water.

]]> By: larryo http://www.frumforum.com/did-even-obamas-supporters-expect-something-this-radical/comment-page-1#comment-51948 larryo Fri, 13 Feb 2009 01:38:30 +0000 #comment-51948 The Republicans opposed the stimulus package precisely because they were afraid it would work, and then how would they look! If American corporations were required to pay their fair share of taxes to do business here, were prohibited from offshoring profits and were required to act like good corporate citizens (no Love Canals, no more of the kind of "accident" that happened in Tennessee, etc no more outsourcing jobs and factories), we would be well on our way to recovery. You didn't say whether "rugged individualism and liberty" means we all go back and live on the frontier somewhere, but they weren't the only "original principles of our republic." In fact, "liberty" appears only in the preamble to the Constitution, and "rugged individualism" is not mentioned in the document anywhere. Nor in Madison's Journals of the Constitutional Convention, if I recall correctly. However, if you agree that at least one of the "original principles" includes immediately nationalizing what passes for the National Bank - the Federal Reserve - so that we may again print our own money, eliminate the national debt and control the money supply for the best interests of everyone instead of some bankers, then I am with you on that 100%. The Republicans opposed the stimulus package precisely because they were afraid it would work, and then how would they look! If American corporations were required to pay their fair share of taxes to do business here, were prohibited from offshoring profits and were required to act like good corporate citizens (no Love Canals, no more of the kind of “accident” that happened in Tennessee, etc no more outsourcing jobs and factories), we would be well on our way to recovery. You didn’t say whether “rugged individualism and liberty” means we all go back and live on the frontier somewhere, but they weren’t the only “original principles of our republic.” In fact, “liberty” appears only in the preamble to the Constitution, and “rugged individualism” is not mentioned in the document anywhere. Nor in Madison’s Journals of the Constitutional Convention, if I recall correctly. However, if you agree that at least one of the “original principles” includes immediately nationalizing what passes for the National Bank – the Federal Reserve – so that we may again print our own money, eliminate the national debt and control the money supply for the best interests of everyone instead of some bankers, then I am with you on that 100%.

]]> By: dstern http://www.frumforum.com/did-even-obamas-supporters-expect-something-this-radical/comment-page-1#comment-38840 dstern Fri, 13 Feb 2009 00:02:57 +0000 #comment-38840 If a little stimulus is good, why wouldn't an even larger stimulus have been better? It is unfortunate that the stimulus wasn't larger because it would have made it more obvious how good or bad an idea it was and accelerated the occurrence of the consequences of it's institution. Also, Republicans ought to have stepped aside and allowed the Democrats to institute whatever stimulus they deemed necessary. In this way, Democrats would get full credit for the reaction produced by their stimulus. I believe that only a massive economic collapse (which is inevitable under the growing and massive burden of socialism) will allow us to rebuild our country upon the foundation of the original prinicples of our republic - rugged indvidualism and liberty. Until this collapse occurs and the eltiology of its occurence made clear, we cannot rebuild our country. If a little stimulus is good, why wouldn’t an even larger stimulus have been better? It is unfortunate that the stimulus wasn’t larger because it would have made it more obvious how good or bad an idea it was and accelerated the occurrence of the consequences of it’s institution. Also, Republicans ought to have stepped aside and allowed the Democrats to institute whatever stimulus they deemed necessary. In this way, Democrats would get full credit for the reaction produced by their stimulus. I believe that only a massive economic collapse (which is inevitable under the growing and massive burden of socialism) will allow us to rebuild our country upon the foundation of the original prinicples of our republic – rugged indvidualism and liberty. Until this collapse occurs and the eltiology of its occurence made clear, we cannot rebuild our country.

]]> By: haloagain http://www.frumforum.com/did-even-obamas-supporters-expect-something-this-radical/comment-page-1#comment-52391 haloagain Thu, 12 Feb 2009 19:54:10 +0000 #comment-52391 Gallup are pretty reliable guys, as far as polls go. Polling for the stimulus has been all over the place, but if this trusted name in polling is any indication, this IS what the American people want: http://www.gallup.com/poll/114577/Stimulus-Support-Edges-Higher.aspx to quote Nate Silver over at fivethirtyeight.com: "Most of the increase in support has come from among Democrats rather than Republicans or independents. As I argued the other day, I don't think that Obama needs to be worried about maintaining an approval rating in the high 60s or low 70s. Instead, he can stay in the high 50s or low 60s by maintaining the support of: (i) Most -- ideally, almost all -- Democrats; (ii) A clear majority of Democrats; (iii) a handful of sympathetic Republicans. That's roughly how Gallup has support breaking down on the stimulus, with 82 percent of Dems, 56 percent of independents, and 28 percent of GOPers now approving." And to paraphrase Mr. Silver -- Obama is selling, and the people are buying. I think this "were we expecting THIS?" argument doesn't have many teeth. Gallup are pretty reliable guys, as far as polls go. Polling for the stimulus has been all over the place, but if this trusted name in polling is any indication, this IS what the American people want: http://www.gallup.com/poll/114577/Stimulus-Support-Edges-Higher.aspx

to quote Nate Silver over at fivethirtyeight.com:

“Most of the increase in support has come from among Democrats rather than Republicans or independents. As I argued the other day, I don’t think that Obama needs to be worried about maintaining an approval rating in the high 60s or low 70s. Instead, he can stay in the high 50s or low 60s by maintaining the support of: (i) Most — ideally, almost all — Democrats; (ii) A clear majority of Democrats; (iii) a handful of sympathetic Republicans. That’s roughly how Gallup has support breaking down on the stimulus, with 82 percent of Dems, 56 percent of independents, and 28 percent of GOPers now approving.”

And to paraphrase Mr. Silver — Obama is selling, and the people are buying.

I think this “were we expecting THIS?” argument doesn’t have many teeth.

]]> By: larryo http://www.frumforum.com/did-even-obamas-supporters-expect-something-this-radical/comment-page-1#comment-48970 larryo Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:31:34 +0000 #comment-48970 "the elitists Democrat Regime cares not for what we want." How much did the truly elitist Republican regime care for what anyone else wanted, or for our laws, treaties or the Constitution for that matter. And why should anyone listen to you cry about it, gospelance, now that the shoe is on the other foot? “the elitists Democrat Regime cares not for what we want.” How much did the truly elitist Republican regime care for what anyone else wanted, or for our laws, treaties or the Constitution for that matter. And why should anyone listen to you cry about it, gospelance, now that the shoe is on the other foot?

]]> By: larryo http://www.frumforum.com/did-even-obamas-supporters-expect-something-this-radical/comment-page-1#comment-50868 larryo Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:28:47 +0000 #comment-50868 "do you think the Government should have nationalized these investment houses too? How about AIG, a multinational insurance company, went bankrupt by investing in worthless credit default swaps, you're going to nationalize it too?" No. AIG and the investment houses should have been permitted to fail. Nationalizing the federal reserves system, albeit temporarily - long enough to oust the managers, audit the books and begin the issuance of greenbacks - would have done it. But with this caveat: I know that the path I would have preferred, had it been mine to take, would have been fraught with peril - the problems are hideously knotty and unbelievably complex. Deregulation has brought us to the place where all paths are fraught with peril, I fear. I agree wholeheartedly with nealjking, when he says that if we are to do a stimulus - and the need to do so is supported by the better of the arguments I have surveyed on both the right and the left - then we should do it right. “do you think the Government should have nationalized these investment houses too? How about AIG, a multinational insurance company, went bankrupt by investing in worthless credit default swaps, you’re going to nationalize it too?” No. AIG and the investment houses should have been permitted to fail. Nationalizing the federal reserves system, albeit temporarily – long enough to oust the managers, audit the books and begin the issuance of greenbacks – would have done it. But with this caveat: I know that the path I would have preferred, had it been mine to take, would have been fraught with peril – the problems are hideously knotty and unbelievably complex. Deregulation has brought us to the place where all paths are fraught with peril, I fear. I agree wholeheartedly with nealjking, when he says that if we are to do a stimulus – and the need to do so is supported by the better of the arguments I have surveyed on both the right and the left – then we should do it right.

]]> By: JJWFromME http://www.frumforum.com/did-even-obamas-supporters-expect-something-this-radical/comment-page-1#comment-45868 JJWFromME Thu, 12 Feb 2009 12:47:40 +0000 #comment-45868 The opinions in this article range from the Cato institute all the way to the AEI: http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Economy/idUSTRE51B1DE20090212?virtualBrandChannel=10112&sp=true Republicans make their own reality. Just like this Bushie said: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/149156.php God help us all. The opinions in this article range from the Cato institute all the way to the AEI:
http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Economy/idUSTRE51B1DE20090212?virtualBrandChannel=10112&sp=true
Republicans make their own reality. Just like this Bushie said:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/149156.php
God help us all.

]]>