As a part of the bailouts the government has already taken part ownership of troubled financial institutions and General Motors. There is a proposal for expanded Medicare for everyone. Now President Obama is proposing financial reforms that would create a new agency to oversee financial institutions. This would add new executive powers. Our country is in the midst of the worst economic crisis since The Great Depression. Obviously there is a need for reform to our financial and health care systems but has Obama’s new proposals gone to far? Is the executive branch grabbing too much power? Is yet another government agency going to make things better? Do we really need a bigger government? Are some of these proposals unrealistic?
My question is why did the government allow these companies to get so big to begin with? Back in the 80’s the gov’t broke up the telephone company into smaller companies because it was thought to be too big. They wanted to avoid the situation we’re in now. This needs to happen again, especially banks. We need to go back to local or regional banks and corporations rather than huge national conglomerates. Then let the ones doing poorly fail. Competition is good. If you make poor business decisions, you need to suffer the consequences, no matter how painful. I’m sorry for the employees, but this is business not communism or socialism. There shouldn’t ever be something “too big to fail”. Even governments fail.
This is another step in his plan to become the socialist dictator of the USA.
He is following in the footsteps of Hitler.
Argh. I voted for Obama, like him and think he does a great job with most things, but I just am not sure about these issues. It does make me nervous though, I will admit that much.
However, it kinda ticks me off that Chrysler filed bankruptcy almost immediately after getting billions in government bailout funds. The whole point of the bailout was to stop that from happening, since bankruptcy of such a large manufacturing corporation causes a serious trickle-down effect which will undoubtedly result in many other business failures – not only that of their dealers, but also the many companies which provide them with materials, many of which are steel mills which provide the sole economy in certain areas – so the bankruptcy should not be permitted.
The rest of this, however, is pretty much over my head.
AK: I believe Bell was a violation of the Anti-trust act. Microsoft was found guilty of violating the Anti-trust act but evenutally wiggled out of all punishment. If Microsoft isn’t guilty of a monoploy then Standard Steel (one of the reasons for the anti-trust act) never was.
Polly: I don’t know what is plans are. I think the Hitler comparison is a little harsh. Democrats tend to be in favor of more governmental control. Republicans tend to neglect the poor and the little guy.
ENM: I have mixed feelings about Obama. He has done some things well. I don’t think we need more governmental control. As for bailouts, it is the little guys like the bookstore were I worked that need bailouts not the big guys. No one bailed us out
I’ll go a step further and say that the Hitler comparison is nonsensical, since there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that Obama would ever engage in mass genocide. Germany wasn’t even a socialist system under Hitler, as suggested. It was a totalitarian system.
However, on the bright side, this is an excellent example of Godwin’s Law, and occurred in what may be record time.
For the uninitiated, according to Godwin, “As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches”. As soon as a Hitler/Nazi comparison is made, the person who made the comparison automatically loses the argument (as well they should in almost all cases), and the thread is shut down.
I’m not sure whether to congratulate Dee on the speed with which Godwin was proven correct on her blog, or whether I should just send her my condolences.