One Step Closer to Socialism.

by robehren | March 26, 2009 at 05:51 am

148 views | 16 Recommendations | 10 comments

We are moving one step closer to socialism. Today Geithner is scheduled to announce “sweeping expansion of federal authority”. A rose by any other name is still a rose and socialism called “sweeping expansion of federal authority” is still socialism.

I get it, we need some oversight in the financial industries but complete government. control is not the right path. Dictating the salaries and limiting the risk that companies can take to benefit shareholders is an anathema to prosperity. Risk = reward. What they are proposing is nothing less than a government take over of private industry.

From an MSN article: “In essence, the plan is a rebuke to raw capitalism. and a reassertion that regulation is critical to the healthy function of financial markets and the steady flow of money to borrowers”. Literal translation: The leaders of industry don’t know as much as the government when it comes to business; or socialism trumps capitalism.

There is an undeclared war against capitalism by the Obama. administration. Capitalism is what made this country what it is and to “rebuke” that fundamental principle is to rebuke the nation that was founded upon it.

From the same MSN article: Geithner plans to call for legislation. that would define which financial firms are sufficiently large and important to be subjected to this increased regulation. Those firms would be required to hold relatively more capital in their reserves against losses than smaller firms, to demonstrate that they have access to adequate funding to support their operations, and to maintain constantly updated assessments of their exposure to financial risk.

Government determines who is large and important? By what standard? They are trying to free up capital so that banks will begin lending and yet are going to require that the “large and important” businesses hold more capital. It seems like a case of contradicting goals. Maybe the federal government should adhere to this principle. .

And perhaps the scariest thing of all:
From the article: Under current law, the government can seize only banks. The administration yesterday detailed its proposed process, under which the Federal Reserve Board, along with any agency overseeing the troubled company, would recommend the need for a seizure. The Treasury secretary, in consultation with the president, then would authorize the action. The firm would be placed under the control of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. The government also would have the power to take intermediate steps to stabilize a firm, such as taking an ownership stake or providing loans.

Hello, I'm pretty sure this is the essence of socialism. Why not just call it what it is? Why hide behind the facade of regulation?

I do not think it in the best interest of our country to give the federal government the power to seize businesses under any circumstance. We have measures in place to deal with failing companies, its called bankruptcy. . They are hell bent on redefining the way this country is structured in the name of “the people”. Lest we forget the cause of this whole mess was government interference in the form of strong armed tactics forcing banks to make unsound loans to high risk borrowers. To be sure, the banks and Wall Street were complicit but that neither abrogates the responsibility of nor negates the lead role of the federal government in this financial meltdown.

As a general rule anything the federal government touches becomes bloated and inefficient. I challenge anyone to point me to a program that contradicts my assertion. Anyone? I eagerly await an answer.
For the complete MSN article click here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29892211

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

sara star

at 06:03 on March 26th, 2009

Pure capitalism is not a great idea. We have to take humanity into consideration. The basics such as education and police force should be available to all and covered by taxes, which can be considered socialism. I think basic health care should fall into that category also. Business is good but not at the expense of profiting from denying people their basic needs. Safety education and health are the start of infrastructure.

Now we do need business. I am all for it. It should be encouraged and supported. But the greed and corruption has gone on for too long and people want CHANGE.

robehren

at 06:47 on March 26th, 2009

Law enforcement is supported by local taxes not the feds. I am a cop and I can attest to this. This is not socialism. A service is provided by the taxes. I was speaking specifically about government control over private sector businesses. That is not what your talking about. I have no problem with tax supported police, fire or other protective services.

lefty_liberated

at 06:12 on March 26th, 2009

Deal with it. Get a conscience.

robehren

at 06:48 on March 26th, 2009

I have a conscience. I just don't want that voice in my head to be the federal government.

Roy C

at 09:07 on March 26th, 2009

There is control and over-control

I am not against every aspect of Geithner's plan and the right is busy making strident assertions about it, but history will show that Clinton signed away controls on banking when he was president with the congressional republicans. It takes two to tango.

And, it is not necessary to have an overhaul of the system because Bush's SEC never investigated anything. That is simple administrative incompetence and/or corruption.

The situation is parallel to the ENRON story. People didn't do their job. To reform, Sarbanes-Oxley was passed, increasing costs tremendously to small businesses.

It was an over-reaction to the apathy that preceded it in terms of law-enforcement. Clinton was in charge for that one.

You can't knee-jerk your way to functional reform by automatically being for or against such reforms.

The devil is in the details. A most apt saying that describes what Obama and his administration have yet to understand and the evidence is the AIG bonuses which Obama signed into law, only to scream about afterward.

Did he take the time to scream at himself in the mirror? And what about all the Obama true believers we have here who, in an ancient tradition that comes from the kings of Hawaii, punish anyone who casts a shadow on their God-King?

eastvanray

at 19:58 on March 26th, 2009

How timely Roy. I am in the process of dealing with SOX 404 disclosure requirements for my (inactive) public company. What a nightmare! I thought Canada's securities regulators were unreasonable but this takes the cake. I, and other I know, are looking to take our companies off US exchanges and move them to more business friendly countries. More regulation will drive investment, job creation and taxes out of the US.

tikun

at 09:28 on March 26th, 2009

Obama did a bait and switch by blaming corporate greed as the reason for the bonuses. But it wouldn't have taken place if he didn't allow it. He is shrewd and knows how to spin and deflect.

To allow the Administration to federalize, oversee and deliberate over the give and take of a viable economic system is to "rape" capitalism of its incentives. If that is ever achieved then we will witness the mass exist of all major corporations from American soil. European nations are already lined up to accept them with open arms.

tikun

at 09:31 on March 26th, 2009

If I did what G did with not paying taxes I would be in jail. But he is the head of the treasury. The fox guarding the hen house? hmm. good.

QueensHart

at 13:45 on March 26th, 2009

Obama's worshipers try to compensate by mass association and crazy ideas of brotherhood with people they will never meet. Instead of solving problems in his household he thinks by fixing mankind which will never be done he temporarily anaesthetizes his life.

The truth hurts. Everyone is overly enthralled with this new party.(an ism.)..it is the new religion they think will fix their unhappiness. Commiting all this money then our children will be so inheriting big time the sins of their fathers.

Education does not start at school. The schools can never educate these children from abusive homes and ignorance and above all no love. People who are not responsiblefor taking care of themselves and expect the tit of government to do it are lousy parents.They have no self love and no answers for their children. If we put our children in schools from daylight to dark they will still be damaged for it can be undone in four hours of hell.Parents can destroy any ideas that do not agree with their victim philosopy. The child's wings are clipped. What can be done about this is not this government infusion of bigger,"better?"schools. Headstart is a known failure. I actually started one of the first. I realized when I went into the homes of my children that this was where work needed to be done.

Our government is not all that needs to be fixed. The individuals personal being is wounded.Until we elect leaders who are not in this for their personal ideologies and desire for the attention and supply they need for their narcissism and disconnection from their conscience we are doomed. We must educate our souls ...find it...build it..and turn from the destruction of unhealthy policies that do not honor the individuals capacities.