| February 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | |||
Obama is proving that some of the change he wants is to replace our market-driven economy, with one in which business decisions are made by the government and forced by law on we, the people. He wants greatly increased government control over health care, education, and energy. And here's the latest example:
Administration seeks increase in oversight of executive pay
WASHINGTON: The Obama administration will call for increased oversight of executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies as part of a sweeping plan to overhaul financial regulation, government officials said.
Obama wants the government to control executive pay at all these financial firms. This kind of central planning of business decisions, controlled by the state, is called a "Planned Economy." From Wikipedia:
A planned economy or directed economy is an economic system in which the government or workers' councils manages the economy. It is an economic system in which the central government makes all decisions on the production and consumption of goods and services. Its most extensive form is referred to as a command economy, centrally planned economy, or command and control economy. In such economies, central economic planning by the state or government is so extensive that it controls all major sectors of the economy and formulates all decisions about their use and about the distribution of income. The planners decide what should be produced and direct enterprises to produce those goods. Planned economies are in contrast to unplanned economies, such as a market economy, where production, distribution, pricing, and investment decisions are made by the private owners of the factors of production based upon their own and their customers' interests rather than upon furthering some overarching macroeconomic plan.
Want to know what countries have, or have had, "planned economies"?
Important planned economies that existed in the past include the economy of the Soviet Union, which was for a time the world's second-largest economy[citation needed], China during its Great Leap Forward, and India, prior to its economic reforms in 1991, Afghanistan under the Soviet occupation and under the Taliban, and Iraq under Saddam Hussein from 1979 to 2003. ...Although most economies today are market economies or mixed economies (which are partially planned), planned economies exist in some countries such as Cuba, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, and Burma.
Yeah, baby! Let's turn the United States' economy into one like those of the Soviet Union, China, Afghanistan, Cuba, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and North Korea!
Frankly, that's change that nobody can believe in.
But that's what Obama is going for.
Update 3-24-09:
From the Washington Post:
U.S. Seeks Expanded Power to Seize Firms
The Obama administration is considering asking Congress to give the Treasury secretary unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy, according to an administration document.
#1
#2For how many years have we watched the salaries of corporate executives climb into the millions while pay for so many of us remained stagnant? How many jobs have corporations shipped overseas because they can pay someone there next to nothing, with little or no regard to the quality of products or the conditions people there are forced to work in? Is it fair that people with pre-existing conditions can't get health care?
Capitalism has given us our prosperity. But if you play the game without a referree, you're just playing streetball. Government is our referree...it needs to blow the whistle when someone commits a foul. Sometimes a ref needs to recognize when the game is getting out of control...a good ref knows when to step in. It becomes socialism when the ref exerts so much control that the game isn't worth playing. I like to think good government understands the right balance. But even when they get it right...no one really likes the ref. A good ref is ok with that though...they know the people didn't pay to see him play.
So what's my point? There are a lot of fears on this website that Obama is creating a socialist government in Washington. But it seems to me if government just stands on the sidelines and does nothing, then we leave all power in the hands of those with the most money. What makes everyone here think that the fat cat CEO's raking in all that money have our best interests at heart?
I'm thankful that we're not a one party system...we need Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, etc. in Washington to ensure balance. Not to liberal, not too conservative...like Goldilocks and the three bears...most Americans want their porridge to be just right.
The concerns about the deficit problem are well founded, and I'm glad Republicans are voicing their concerns. However, for too long our government has put off important issues that need to be addressed.
Rising health costs are not going away...how can we ensure everyone is covered? NO...YOU DON'T HAVE TO SOCIALIZE MEDICINE TO ACCOMPLISH THIS. Universal care and Socialist medicine are NOT the same thing.
We need a cure for our addiction to foreign oil. So what if you don't believe in global warming? Believe in good ol' fashioned American know-how again...start investing in innovative technologies and new sources of energy. We can't put this off any longer (electric cars were being built in the 70's...but big car and oil companies were allowed to buy out and crush these prototypes).
Education. Those textile jobs aren't coming back. We need 21st century skills for a 21st century nation.
We can't trust corporate America to fix everything, and we can't afford to have a government that just stands on the sidelines watching the world go by. I'm concerned about our deficits, but I'm more concerned about not investing in our future. I have no problem with raising taxes on the wealthiest members of our society because they have consistantly been cutting a bigger slice of the pie for themselves every year for the last couple of decades. The rich fatten their bank accounts. The middle class are the ones who spend their paychecks.
Before we go saying our government screws up everything it touches, let's remember that without our tax dollars there would be no national defense, no interstate highway system, no Federal Reserve, no judicial system, etc. Then there's the new techologies discovered by tax funded research. And everyone hates money that goes to the arts. But the arts are also small businesses that employ people and adds to the quality of our lives. In spite of the "bad art" that's out there, such money is not always as "wasted" as it is portrayed to be.
In short..I believe the American people can have confidence that they have selected a competent and effective leader in Barack Obama. He is only human, and will make mistakes, but he is the kind of person who will learn from those mistakes and make the necessary corrections (unlike previous leadership). He has shown respect for his opponents and shown great restraint from playing the "blame game"(more members of Congress on both sides of the aisle should follow his lead on this). I respectfully disagree that he is creating a "planned economy". He has recommended that we invest in our future, and I have not seen evidence to suggest that the Republicans have any solid alternative plans at the moment (other than keep taxes low for our wealthiest citizens).
#3the only time the Fed should be involved in the economy is to: 1 Ensure a level playing field. 2 Bar restrictions on trade between the states (i.e. no tarrifs on goods entering, leaving, or transiting the state. 3. Intervene only when and if things become so abusive that an outside party must become involved to correct the problem. Setting of wage, price, and quality controls are beyond the Constitutional mandate of Government.
#4government needs to back off in schools, taxes, and day to day lives!
Our founding fathers said gvernment should basically only keep the peace and have an army to defend our country, nothing more. We've relaly moved away from that.. Nothing against Obama for being black, he cold be polka dots for all i care, but i think he's trying to give the gov. more power, which makes me want to move to Canada all over again.
Speaking of Canada....
their healthcare system is VERY faulty! I have family who lives there and they prolonged my mother's back surgery to remove a tumor for a YEAR! making it so much worse, now she has a metal rod in her back!
And my grandma has gotten catarac surgery on ONE eye..but not the other...and wont get it on the other for another three months, a full NINE after getting the first one. 0_0 stay out of healthcae government ppls...
i agree with blank!
#5Our founding fathers were not of one mind. If our founding fathers said goverment should only "keep the peace and raise an army" , then how do you explain the years of debate and compromise that went into the Constitution? The document they left us is full of checks and balances on power, and if you believe that what they created is no longer what governs us, I can assure you that Republican administrations have proven as adept at creating that change as anybody. The problem with their version of "big government" is that they feed like pigs at the trough and then walk out without paying the bill.
Are you against children working in coal mines? Would you outlaw it? Fine...what if the child working in the coal mine is attempting to help feed his family, because his father is dead, and the nation he lives in has no social security or welfare? Is this the kind of nation we want...one where the only role of the government is in arming the police and military? Conservative politics should be about governing as effectively as possible with the subtlest touch possible..but looking down the list of Republican leaders available now I wonder if any of them have the slightest clue how to sail this ship. Obama is not even one year into the journey...far early too hand out awards maybe, but far too early to consider a failure as well.
If we had taken care of business, and invested in the needs we knew existed when times were good, then fixing our problems now wouldn't be so difficult. Now you want us to delay health care reform? So you think the rising costs we now face is a problem that you can just close your eyes and ignore? Canada is not the only country in the world with universal health care...but we are the developed country without it. Look to Germany, Britain, Australia, Japan, Taiwan, the Netherlands...no two are exactly alike. Look where we rank in longevity, health care costs, and tell me what we "can't do". Forget Canada...what they have isn't even on the table as a proposal for the change we want here.
#6YES the only government i want is arming the police and military. just keep the peace, as citizens we shoudl take carer of eachother, but we shouldn't be FORCED to. that's all i'm saying
and im very surprised about your comment about republican leaders! last i checked the democrats wanted a stronger government hand, not the republicans.
i'm not partial to any party, but i will agree that bush interfered too much, and obama looks like (and has already attempted to) he's trying to interfere even more.
I'm not considering him a failure, but i strongly disagree with everything he's doing.
freedom ranks higher than life in my eyes.
#7You need to check again...beyond the political rhetoric. Government grew under Republican control during the Bush years. They delivered on lower taxes, but dropped the ball on cutting spending. That would have meant making tough political decisions that may have been unpopular with a lot of folks, thus costing them the votes they need to stay in office. Perhaps if term limits put an end to career politicians, our elected leaders might have the backbone to carry through on their own convictions. Democrats look like they may make the same mistake...choosing votes over ideology. You know, there's more than one way to skin a cat...I honestly believe both Democrats and Republicans have a lot of good ideas. If only either party had the guts to see them carried out.
Human beings are not solitary creatures...we work best in groups. Your idea of government sounds like that of a third world nation. If you want to live in a military state, then maybe you should give Burma a try. As for me, I want good schools, good roads, good health care (and a good way to pay for it), investments in science and technology, and lots of other perks that come from having an effective government (besides just strong armed forces). If you're worried about big government, one that's stangled by it's own beaurocracy, then I respect that. But if you'd rather put your faith in laissez-faire economics, trusting that unbridled capitalism always works things out, then in my opinion you are failing to appreciate the lessons learned by the inaction of Hoover as the Great Depression swept the nation like an economic tsunami. Bush and Obama approved the bailouts and stimulus because they understood the threat that faced us, and that no other institution was able to come to the rescue. They followed the advice of the experts, and put our money where it would get the most bang for our buck. Sorry it isn't popular, or make for warm fuzzy headlines.
Our government is not our enemy. People have become so cynical..they fail to realize how lucky we are to live in America. Government for the people and by the people is not dead. It remains a tool that can serve to improve the quality of life for people who would otherwise be at the mercy of the whims of corporate executives, who don't care about your health care, don't care about the environment, and don't care if your job gets shipped overseas. Do you not understand that? We need to elect the people who are not working in the interest of money alone. We need leaders free capable of hearing out the special interest groups without bowing to them. America is about checks and balances...and we need to let each part play its role. Corporate America has its role. The government has its role. Our churches have their role. And you have your role. Salute the flag, pay your taxes, quit yer bitchin, and let's make America the best it can be. And our best is not what we were, but what we can be. A nation on the cutting edge of new technologies...harnessing new types of energy...a nation where people don't lose health coverage because of a pre-existing condition. A nation where people actually make things again, and not one consumed by consumerism. Just my opinion. You know, I could be wrong. But if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.
I'm glad that Obama is president for the following reason. The constitutionally ignorant people will now be forced to reconnect with the Constitution and its history in order to protect themselves from Socialist Obama's misguided pen.
Regarding health care, for example, given that the Constitution is silent about health care, the 10th A. automatically reserves government power to regulate and lay taxes for health care to the states. For instance, Jefferson, writing about the Founder's division of federal and state powers, had noted that the Founders had trusted the states, not the federal government, with the care of the people.
"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the care of our persons (emphasis added), our property, our reputation and religious freedom." --Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801. ME 10:262 http://tinyurl.com/onx4j
In fact, given the Founders reserved to the states, not the Oval Office and Congress, the lion's share of government power to serve the people, Chief Justice Marshall had established the following case precedent which appropriately limits the power of the feds to lay taxes.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." --Chief Justice Marshall, GIBBONS V. OGDEN (1824) http://supreme.justia.com/us/22/1/case.html
So the stimulus package can be thought of as the federal government returning to the states money that it had stolen from the states anyway.
Finally, regarding the First Bank of Obama, constitutionally clueless Constitution "expert" Obama is wrongly ignoring that Jefferson had also noted that the Founding States had decided against a national bank.
"It is known that the very power now proposed as a means was rejected as an end by the Convention which formed the Constitution. A proposition was made to them to authorize Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to incorporate. But the whole was rejected, and one of the reasons for rejection urged in debate was, that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies on the subject, adverse to the reception of the Constitution." --Jefferson's Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bank-tj.asp
The bottom line is that the people need to wise up to what's going on and do the following. They need to work with their state lawmakers to repeal the 16th Amendment, the amendment that gives the feds the power to tax citizens directly. The problem with that amendment is it makes it too easy for the corrupt federal government to lay constitutionally unauthorized taxes, in my opinion.