Just over two years ago, when the mortgage meltdown helped send the economy south, Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media told us the deregulatory policies of the Bush Administration were to blame. Only problem was that W, good man that he was (and remains), wasn’t a deregulator.
He called himself a compassionate conservative and in his eyes, followers of that ideology embraced a more activist federal government. He didn’t see government as the problem. He didn’t seek to deregulate the private sector.
Indeed, whenever I ask our readers to identify specific deregulatory policies of the Bush Administration (that led to the meltdown), we get no references to Bush-era policies, but instead references to Clinton-era policies. And as I noted in the post linked above, even “Obama-supporting columnist Sebastian Mallaby wrote, during [the 2008] campaign, that the “claim that the financial crisis reflects Bush-McCain deregulation is not only nonsense. It is the sort of nonsense that could matter.“ Deregulation didn’t cause the meltdown.
Now via Glenn Reynolds comes a report that indicates that instead of deregulating the economy, George W. Bush re-regulated it:
Citing Government Accountability Office figures, Heritage said “federal agencies promulgated 43 rules during the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, that impose significant burdens on the private sector. The total costs for these rules were estimated by the regulators themselves at some $28 billion, the highest level since at least 1981, the earliest date for which figures are available.”
And contrary to the conventional wisdom, Obama’s red tape explosion was preceded by a Bush administration regulatory carpet-bombing of the private sector that increased the cost of doing business by at least $70 billion.
Read the whole thing.
This is exactly right. All of the bureaucratic inertia that existed from the previous 42 presidents was still there and Bush actually added to government. While he attempted to crack down on Fannie and Freddie, he didn’t expend a whole lot of political capital towards that end.
Liberals lie about alleged Bush deregulation because everything liberals believe is a lie.
Yes. One example: Sarbox, one of the heaviest new financial regulatory laws in decades, a law which has weakened New York as a world financial center by driving new companies away from U.S. registration.
(continued) Bush signed Sarbox in 2002.
This is a juicy quote:
because the same is true on spending and other policies. Bush jacked up domestic spending and (with it) overall deficits; Obama jacked them up even more.
Contrary to myth, there is a LOT of continuity between Bush domestic policies and Obama’s – with Obama doubling-down, to make them worse. Another example: Bush supported Greenspan’s 1% interest rates which were a large factor in the housing bubble; now Obama supports Bernanke’s 0% rates, even worse. One could go on.
Republican economic theory has dominated for the past decades even despite Bill Clinton’s term in the 90s. The housing bubble was inflated and burst during Bush’s presidency and they did nothing to prevent it; the same kind of negligence they demonstrated in conducting the Iraq war was on display during their stewardship of the economy. When you have people campaigning on a platform of government being the problem, is it reasonable to expect anything less?
Both parties are completely enslaved by wealthy and powerful rich people who are working as fast as they can to sacrifice long-term American economic stability for their own short-term profit. Unfortunately, the conservative movement seems singularly dedicated to allowing these wealthy powerful people to have at it. They wouldn’t be able to get away with it if it weren’t for your fanatical devotion to free market puritanism.
Well Levi, free markets seem to make sense, given you failed to back up your statement about ‘several successful socialist countries’. Plus it was Fannie/Freddie interference, and Democrat efforts to foil any investigation that led to the bubble.
Still, you have 101 days to tie your record of admitting you don’t know what you’re talkling about in your efforts to ‘get back’ to us on global warming.
How do you spell fail? L-E-V-I
Dan, you’re right that many Democrats get the story of “Bush deregged govt to a point where the economy collapsed” all wrong. I know the housing bubble was created by a shared greed among homeowners, lenders and repackagers writing checks their investment simply couldn’t cash. 0 interest loans; no downpayment; interest only payments; high interest balloon loans; etc. Greed wasn’t good in this instance.
The Democrats & their MSM allies simply have it wrong and are making up the story to cover their complicity in the collapse by thwarting Bush’s and the GOP’s repeated calls for reining in Fannie, Freddie and Sallie.
But, with respect, you and some fellow conservatives (like Mark Tapscott writing for the WashExam) get somethings wrong too.
Like the oft’ misused and misapplied line from Reagan’s 1st Inaugural about govt being the problem… Reagan was specifically talking about the policies of the Carter Admin and Congressional Democrats (we had just won back the majority in the Senate in 80) and the adverse impact it had on our economy.
High taxes. High debt. Inflation. Low productivity. Confiscatory tax system.
That was specifically what Reagan was talking about when he said, “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” Present crisis; he wasn’t condemning those who thought citizen intervention and service in govt was noble. In fact, in the sunset of his time, Reagan told one of America’s most noble and selfless govt leaders, Geo Bush 41, to go out an “win one for the Gipper” and keep the WH in GOP hands. Deosn’t exactly sound like an indictment of govt service or the good that Reagan knew govt could do for America.
Conservatives have taken the “govt is the problem” line and expanded it to include a new touchstone for purity test of conservatism that now includes an anti-govt animus –that’s better suited in the dreamland world of libertarians. And the folks who misuse Reagan’s line are being incredibly ironic –because they are using a career politician like Reagan –the activist, union leader, governor and multi-time presidential candidate– to argue the broader unintended attribution that govt is a problem. Reagan’s greatest accomplishments came as a politician, a govt leader, a conservative activist… not as an actor or sports announcer or father. Ironic, no?
Your bifurcated piece reflects the kind of trouble many conservatives get into these days when trying to button-hole W… for instance W, in fact, tried to deregulate and privatize Fannie, Freddie, Sallie and GinnieMae; the Dems stopped him. The same Administration also fought efforts to make a super-mega security agency whose first 18 months of rule making and regulation swamped the previous 8 yrs of rule making by the composite agencies.
And I’m sure I don’t need to point out that a huge portion of the “regulatory legacy” of W’s Admin was, in fact, the most significant effort to date to thwart rule making and regs –so successful that many environmentalists, consumer advocates, trial lawyers and other Democrat constituencies complained that W was gutting govt rules… while expanding govt’s reach into our privacy and daily lives under the guise of natl security.
The Heritage Foundation –who Tapscott uses to indict W– said this of W: “To its credit, the Bush Administration during its seven years in office has made significant efforts to rein in regulation, mostly through enhanced review of regulatory proposals to ensure that any new restrictions are necessary and impose as little burden as possible. The White House agency responsible for reviewing proposed new rules-the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), part of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)-has taken an active role as a gatekeeper.[5] It has established strict criteria for agencies’ “regulatory impact analyses” of their rules and for peer review of those analyses. In early 2007, President Bush further strengthened the system by, among other things, increasing the role of designated “regulatory policy officers” within agencies.[6]”
The most significant act of W to rein in rulemaking was, according to Heritage, the effort to oversee rule promulgation with rules from a rule-making agency. Insane.
It’s kind of like using Reagan’s quote about “govt being a problem” to indict those who think govt can be used as an implement for constructive, right-centered progress in public policy. W, like me, was at Reagan’s Inaugural that day. We heard the same speech. Neither of us get the message wrong on that score.
That is so confused/wrong. W tried (and the Dems stopped him) to **regulate** Fannie, Freddie, etc.; and rightly so, because they were entities of government, and the other major factor (along with Greenspan) in creating the housing bubble. One thing that I do give Bush credit for, is that he made some effort to rein in those agencies and the crazy sh*t they were out there doing.
To be clear: A government-sponsored corporation is not an example of real people working in free markets. It is an anti-free-market monstrosity. As such, yes, its activities should be as tightly regulated as possible.
Let’s be clear on this. Again, this is what Reagan said *and meant*, in his 1981 inaugural:
MM, what part of that is unclear? And can there be any doubt, except perhaps from you and Levi, that it applies equally to today’s crisis? IN THIS PRESENT CRISIS, GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE SOLUTION TO OUR PROBLEMS; GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM.
And “right-centered progress in public policy” – What is that? Surely ‘right-centered’ means ‘favoring the right-wing side of the political spectrum’. There are only two kinds of right-wing progress in public policy to be made there:
1) The American type of ‘right-wing’ which means more liberty, Founding Fathers / constitutionalism, smaller government. Government helps people (and free markets) by CUTTING ITSELF. By GETTING THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY.
2) Or, the European type of ‘right-wing’ which means ever-growing government. National(istic) socialism; Franco, Mussolini, Hitler.
That’s it. Take your pick.
Just to back up what I said about Bush having tried to **regulate** (not de-regulate) Freddie and Fannie, and rightly so:
September 2003.
Headline: “New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae”
Lede: “The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. Under the plan… a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac… The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken.”
Source: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print
BTW, “have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt” – yikes! can you say ‘housing bubble’? And that was only in 2003!
So again: Like Sarbox and other examples, Fannie and Freddie fit the theme of Bush having been in favor of more regulation – however much Bush may have fought off the most extreme proposals of the left-wingers. I just treat Fannie and Freddie as a special case where regulation was right because they were government agencies – and government agencies should be limited, especially out-of-control agencies wrecking the entire U.S. financial system.
#4. Levi, check the internet to determine which Party had oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when the housing bubble burst. Check to determine which Dem (Barney Frank) stated that he “couldn’t find” any individual responsible for the problem. Check again to see which party resisted the efforts made to reign Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in…Ron Paul wrote a piece about Government Sponsored Enterprises (FM & FA) that operate without the consequences of having to produce result in the free market and the possible consequences for the economy. When you make your “feeling statements” attempt to back them up with the facts not just your “indignation.”
I don’t understand how it can be seriously stated that the government is the problem in the current situation given the hundreds of billions of dollars that private companies and a small circle of individuals have leeched out of the economy over the past few years. The purpose of having a government is to stop this kind of implosion from occurring in the first place. The real problem lies in the collusion of big business and politicians, who are working together to hamstring government’s oversight tools to their mutual benefit.
I’ve said it before; the government is no more an inherent problem that must be overcome than any other institution in society. Government only becomes a problem when corrupt and incompetent people get their hands on it, which happened habitually for thousands of years before the United States was founded and democracy was instituted as a means of preventing that from happening. Inevitably, those corrupt and greedy individuals have figured out how to nullify the anti-corruption effects of democracy, namely, by having boatloads of money. They can buy all of the politicians, guaranteeing that any choice results in favorable outcomes for them, and they can buy the press, guaranteeing that political discourse is clogged with misinformation and propaganda. The citizens are distracted while they shamelessly exploit government for their own purposes, largely in secret.
To sit around asserting that the free market needs to be allowed to resolve all conflicts and problems while demanding that government be continually reduced and replaced is to play right into their hands.
One again, our resident socialist pops his head up to argue that all we need are the ‘right people’ to rule us and life will be so much better.
Sorry, the US was founded to get away from a ruling class and the rest of us, Levi. If you had any clue about history, you might know that.
Now hush Levi, adults are talking.
Of course you don’t. It’s a “given”.
Actually ILC, we shouldn’t be surprised. Levi’s answer to government corruption is… that somehow it will magically become more competent all by itself, with the ‘right people’.
Given that he wants to drag us kicking and screaming to the future we shouldn’t be surprised. Then again, he proves time and time again the width and breadth of what he doesn’t know.
How do you spell fail? L-E-V-I.
Simple to illustrate.
Which does a better job of educating children, public schools or private schools?
Which provide better quality of health care, private hospitals in the USA or NHS hospitals in Britain?
Which is better housing, a private development or a public housing project?
Which gets you where you want to go, at a time of your choosing, with optimal comfort… personal transportation or public transportation?
Which shows more compassion, and uses resources more efficiently; private charity or public welfare?
Name any human activity that has become more efficient, less costly, and of better quality because of Government intervention.
I would also add, what does a better job of providing a larger volume of news from a greater variety of viewpoints, private broadcasting or public broadcasting?
Fixed.
ILC, for reference please see the first word in my prior comments.
Nonetheless, you offer: “That is so confused/wrong. W tried (and the Dems stopped him) to **regulate** Fannie, Freddie, etc.; and rightly so, because they were entities of government, and the other major factor”….
No, you’re wrong again. W’s plan was to dereg Fannie and Freddie and strip them of their GSE standing… he wanted to employ marketplace mechanisms to correct the excesses of Fannie, Freddie and the other GSEs. De-regulation, ILC. Only in your creative world of Alice Wonderland can privatization be viewed as a regulatory scheme. Sigh.
I’m happy to see you part company with your long-standing position that Reagan’s claim of govt being the problem is now properly restricted to economic crises, not a general indictment of govt writ large. That’s progress to point… you may want to apply the quote to today’s economic problems but that would be equally foolhardy. The problem wasn’t with govt –the problem was with lenders, repackagers and HOMEOWNERS who willingly played fast and loose with their collectively held investment –turning on its very head a long standing American tradition of treating your home mortgage as a treasured piece of the American Dream… to be properly valued, properly maintained, properly financed.
Should the govt have acted sooner and burdened the marketplace with new regulations and rule making? I don’t know. I do know that if they had, some little snarky pundit would now be claiming that Bush created more regulations than anyone else AND denied all Americans the opportunity to grasp at a piece of the American Dream… damned if you, damned if you don’t.
… even if the New York Times reported on a Bush administration proposal for greater Fannie / Freddie oversight. OK, Mich-Revisionist.
No, Mich-Revisionist. It was a problem with **government**. Some key factors that leap to mind:
– 1% interest rates. (Set by the Federal Reserve, a quasi-governmental central planning agency to which Congress has delegated its power to control the coinage.)
– Fannie and Freddie encouraging securitization of mortgages and the lowering of standards. (Also quasi-governmental agencies, created by Congress.)
– The Community Reinvestment Act, under which, regulators basically told the banks that they *had to* start making loans they wouldn’t have otherwise wanted to make, i.e. low-quality loans to low-quality lenders.
Others could probably add more. Government, government, government.
By contrast, in a free-market system, banks and borrowers alike are careful with loans, because money is scarce and expensive – something that you can easily earn 5% or 7% or 10% interest on – and because profit-seeking banks will want to be paid back.
The government should never have set interest rates at 1%, should never have created Freddie and Fannie, and should never have ordered the banks to lower standards and make bad loans.
Given that the government did do those things: Yes, the government should have acted much sooner to burden Freddie and Fannie. Not the marketplace per se, but the anti-market Frankenstein creations that the government had already injected into the markets. It should have regulated those a lot more, and, as already stated, I credit Bush for trying.
Sorry, this was supposed to be the CRA link: http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/25/a-great-example-of-how-we-got-to-the-credit-market-meltdown/
And of course I really meant, …”low-quality loans to low-quality -borrowers-“
Julian Ass’ange states that his next document dump is on Big Banks and Big Corporations. I would like to make bet that never happens.
Imus In The Morning Fox Business News. Guest Chip Reid, Laura Ingraham and Mike Wallace on what the impact of Wikileaks and Julian Assange’s motivation. I think Mike Wallace nailed Ass’ange, when he compared what he does to pornography.
Hackers Challenge: Dunk Julian Ass’ange, If You Think You Have The Balls;)
Weaky Leaky & The Dunking Tank
http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/2010/12/tgif-circus-life-weaky-leaky-and.html
Bush’s Treasury Secretary John Snow, in 2003 (first video, the one from Fox / Brit Hume):
The unhappy Bawney Fwank pushed back on him; the video shows him accusing Snow of exaggeration.
In 2005, Greenspan (Bush re-appointee) also, and to his credit, called for greater Freddie/Fannie regulation. McCain then pushed for *greater* regulation of them and was blocked by Democrats.
But hey – I’m only quoting facts. May I never dispute MM’s version of reality!
Well, it depends on if we’re talking about educating the children whose parents can afford to pay for private school, or if we’re talking about educating children in general. It would be great if everyone could afford to send their kids to private schools, but that’s simply not practical. Public schools, with all their flaws, reach the masses. For my money, having almost everyone receive some education is far superior to having a few rich kids receive the best education.
We spend more money on healthcare than any country in the world, but we don’t have get the best results. We have higher rates of obesity, higher rates of heart disease, shorter lifespans, and higher infant mortality than most of Europe. Again – if you’re incredibly rich, it’s a great system, but it’s terribly inefficient for most of us and we’d be a lot better off with a more socialized system.
Yeah, are you noticing the pattern? Obviously, if you can afford it, a private development is preferential, but public housing is a far better solution than having millions of people living on the streets, isn’t it?
Just because you’re driving a car doesn’t mean you aren’t using public transportation. Those are public roads and no private entity would be able to provide anything nearly as high quality as what the government provides everyone. And I ride the DC Metro to work 2 to 3 times a week and enjoy it thoroughly – there’s no traffic to worry about, I can read a book, it’s actually pretty relaxing.
Private charity isn’t going to pay for healthcare for seniors. Welfare programs are great and you’d be surprised how crappy life would be in this country if they all disappeared overnight.
I just don’t even get the thinking here – government intervention is all permeating every moment of the day. The economy is completely dependent on the government, and every positive result of the private sector economy is directly and indirectly the consequence of our big, huge government in a thousand different ways. Wherever I am, I can get clean drinking water because of the government. I can use a cell phone because government regulates air waves for the public. I can count on police or medical assistance within a few minutes in virtually every corner of the country.
We would be literally foraging for berries and living in caves if it weren’t for the invention of government. It is synonymous with human civilization and technological advancement. When you tea partiers get all mushy and patriotic about the United States, you’re not getting mushy about capitalism, you’re getting mushy about the government that has provided for you in so many ways throughout your lifetime. You know it’s true, too.
Because private schools are better. We have had poorer kids going to private schools via charitable donations, but rich liberals came along and booted the poor kids out because they didn’t want their kids to associate with “those people”.
When you redefine “obesity” to include people who are physically fit, then yeah we do have a high rate. As I’ve asked before, if we are really getting fatter, how come clothes aren’t coming in larger sizes? Go down to your WalMart and see how many shirts you can find in XXX or above. See how many pants you can find over a 38″ waist. It’s even more illustrative if you go to SteinMart or Marshall’s.
Is it? I’ve been to a few and would rather do without. We had some projects in our fire district called Haverstock Hill. Used to call it Haverstock Hell. When we went on runs in the project, a guy had to stay behind with the engine and/or ambulance to make sure nobody stole it or any of the equipment.
You know it’s a bad neighborhood when the police put in a substation in the middle.
The question remains, which is better? If government is so damn great, why are projects always a shit hole?
Who built and repairs the roads? Certainly not the government.
If you don’t think of it as a money drain that continually sucks up taxpayer money year after year. And who built the buses? Certainly not the city.
They aren’t? Private charities like St. Jude’s, the Shriners and multiple religious charities provide health care for folks.
Nevermind that they’re massive unfunded liabilities billions in the red and grossly prone to fraud. If they’re so damn great, why siphon off $500 bills to create another one?
That’s something to be proud of? Government has NO business being that deeply entrenched. It used to be, until Hoover and FDR, that the private sector alone dealt with any economic downturns. Now that the government’s involved, they last a lot longer and effect more people.
And private companies like Siemens, for example, have absolutely nothing to do with it? The government builds and maintains all the equipment?
That would be your government issued cell phone by United States Cellular monopoly?
Lakeland has a government run electric company. Always inefficient, always breaking down and always raising their rates. Our bills are a lot lower since we moved out of the city and have TECO which, if I’m not mistaken, relies on nuclear power.
And there’s the disdain liberals have for people.
After all, Algore invented the internet. And who could forget all the government inventions like penicillin, aspirin, automobiles, computers, electricity, lightbulbs etc.
Nope. It’s pretty much everything liberals HATE with a purple-plectic rage.
I’ll add another: In the town just south of here, the government run water plant has boil water warnings about every other month. A pump broke down the other day. They had to bring in Porta Johns to the schools, which weren’t government Porta Johns. What’s more, about 70% of the students were either kept home or were picked up later by their parents.
The next day a new pump, which I can guarantee you was not built by the government was installed. Most likely, there’ll be another breakdown at the government run water department on or shortly after Christmas and the folks will get yet another boil water warning from their benevolent government.
Uh, what? That’s some strange conspiracy theory you got there.
Anyway, to reiterate; private schools will never be large enough to accommodate all American children – that’s the bottom line and that’s why public schools are necessary.
What? Who redefines obesity to include fit people?
Your anecdotal Wal-Mart evidence is not convincing. We’re inarguably unhealthy and overweight compared to the rest of the world and it costs us a huge amount of economic activity every between lost productivity and our for-profit healthcare industry.
Oh yes, I’m sure you’d rather live on the streets than have a room. You’re full of it.
Again, it is a baseline. If the private sector economy is not employing and educating and housing people, what are we supposed to do? Just let homeless people wander the streets breaking crimes until they get some personal responsibility? As great as capitalism is, it does leave some people behind. We’re just supposed to pretend they don’t exist, or something?
But they pay for it, don’t they?
I recognize that it costs money – but it saves money too. If we should down all subways and public transportation for a day, the economic productivity of the country would plummet. People just wouldn’t be able to get to work. If the few hundred thousand people that ride the Metro in DC everyday were all of a sudden driving a car? The freeways would be parking lots.
As far as the buses go, of course they weren’t built by the city. They were built by a private company that was more than eager to sell their product to such a large buyer as the federal government. It’s hard to understand how you can be so short-sighted. Public transportation takes taxpayer dollars, injects it into the private sector, and taxpayers benefit by shorter commutes and convenient travel. It’s a total win-win situation.
No, they aren’t, not by a long shot. We’re talking about providing two or three decades worth of care to habitually sick people – you think a couple private charities are going to be able to raise that kind of money?
Welfare programs do in many cases end up feeding, housing, and educating poor kids, even though there are instances of fraud. You’re telling me that because someone will occasionally spend a food stamp on alcohol, you’d rather we just let all those kids go hungry? You’d rather these people were pushed into desperation to feed their families? Give me a break. If you think you’re more deserving of a tax cut than some poor kid is deserving of a meal than you’re not as dedicated to the sanctity of life as you think you are.
Yeah, the 19th century – those were the days, weren’t they? You really want to turn the clock back that far, huh? In the time since FDR, we’ve been the a superpower and the most important country in the global economy, but you don’t like social security or Medicaid so you just want to go back to the olden days? That’s crazy.
I never said private companies didn’t have anything to do with what’s nice about living in this country. It’s the cooperation and interplay between government and business – I wouldn’t want to rely exclusively on one any more than the other.
There is only so much spectrum, and it is a public resource. It belongs to all of us, and the government leases it out to the highest bidder and regulates it so that some moron can’t broadcast whatever he wants and interfere with your signal. This is another example of a positive public/private sector relationship.
Great? Good for you?
How is that disdain for people?
You have absolutely no point. I am completely capable of recognizing the advantages that capitalism confers upon the economy, I’m just not going to pretend like it’s a 100% perfect system that can completely run a society in the 21st century all by itself. I like the government, and I like the private sector – it’s possible to do both, you know.
Do you understand what I’m saying? When you guys get all choked up about Independence Day and the red white and blue, it’s because some guys founded a government. They didn’t form corporations, and as a matter of fact, many of them were worried about curbing the influence of corporations. The point is, our democratic government is what allows our free market to exist in the first place.
So, Levi engages in the idiot’s argument of creating false dichotomies: If you don’t support an all-powerful Government, then the only alternative is anarchy. If you don’t support expensive, rat-infested housing projects, the alternative is people living on the streets. If you don’t support a massively over-funded, bureaucratic education system, children will not educated.
Total BS. Before projects, people lived in slums. The conditions were just as bad as public housing, but it was a hell of a lot cheaper for everyone involved.
We also know private schools do a better job of teaching at a per-pupil cost that’s often half the per pupil cost of public schools. With the right tax and market incentives, a vibrant private education sector could provide education to children who seek it. The reason liberal politicians won’t let this happen is that they are beholden to the Teacher’s Unions, who demand more money every year and every year do an even lousier job of educating kids. (That’s pretty much every Government program in a nutshell.) And it’s not just a coincidence that the Teachers Unions act now as giant money laundering operations for pouring taxpayer dollars into Democrat campaign coffers.
The proper role of Government in the economy ought to be limited to enforcing contract law and certain infrastructure development. When the Government picks winners and losers… as the Obama Administration is doing… the result is waste and corruption; billions squandered on green energy and embryonic stem cell research with no tangible benefit, for example.
Furthermore, public educational spending in the USA per student has increased by over 300% in real dollars over the last thirty years. During that period, the performance of American students relative to those in foreign countries has declined sharply. Explain how this is possible given the progressive dogma of “Government money fixes everything.”
Again, folks, we’re forgetting something here.
Without Social Security and Medicare, Levi’s parents would starve, because he doesn’t want to spend a dime of his own money on them for food, shelter, or health care. Let the government do it, he says.
Without welfare programs, the children Levi produced with his promiscuous sex with multiple women would starve, because he would never take responsibility for any of them or provide for any of them. Let the government do it, he says.
When one realizes that leftists and “progressives” like Levi see starving children and helpless people everywhere because they’re the people that “progressives” and leftists are leaving helpless and to starve, their attitude becomes understandable. Levi cannot — or more precisely, does not want to — make the connections between his actions and his responsibility, and wants to shovel the detritus he creates off onto the public so he doesn’t have to worry about it.
“Progressives” and leftists like Levi cannot comprehend individual responsibility, because they’ve never had it or taken it. They view the government as their parents, an inexhaustible supply of money that exists solely to give them whatever they want and answer their every tantrum.