Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
The Washington Monthly
so what we have here from the nihilist right is an attempt to generate a problem for the obama administration by blocking extension of one of the more important aspects of the stimulus package that has, as the article above notes, put about 200,000 people back to work in order to then point at the administration and say "you didn't do anything."
this isn't really about the "be a dick" school of "thinking" about social problems that---god knows how---might actually be a matter of faith for folk like dogzilla.
this is about a craven attempt to exploit conservative media domination in order to generate a problem that the right can then spin with the idea in mind of getting the only thing that matters to conservatives, really---->power.
|
So exactly what program was the Obama administration willing to cut in order to fund this program? Exactly how many of these 320,000 jobs were nothing more than busy work jobs or no-show that the government is fond of creating to give politician's buddies some spending money.
If the state of the economy is such that it can't support these jobs, just how long is this program supposed to exist? 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? 100 years? You do understand the concept of a temporary program, don't you?
---------- Post added at 05:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:26 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
You aren't a fan of "nanny state" regulations, or you aren't a fan of those you don't benefit from?
One benefit of a reasonable regulatory environment is a stable banking system. Failures are disruptive, and are largely preventable. This has been the case in the Canadian system, which hasn't seen a failure in decades. And with the exception of two small regional banks, there haven't been any bank failures since before the Depression.
Now, I don't know about you, but I'd prefer to have a set of rules that banks must follow to avoid the kind of shit that happened in the U.S. beginning in 2008.
Call them "nanny state" regulations if you want, but they serve their purpose and they do it well. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
---------- Post added at 03:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:04 PM ----------
Things are going to get interesting in November.  |
I'm not fond of nanny state rules in general. There's ways to avoid the risk of a single investment going bust, by diversifying your investments in as many places as you can. For instance broad market based mutual funds.
And yeah, I could have done without the nanny state rules where the government encouraged banks (thanks to Barney Frank and others) banks to grant loans to people who had no business obtaining credit long before 2008.
Hope and change is finally coming in November
