I just had to post this here as well, having already done so at AmericanDescent. I'm just really impressed with this dude's spine in standing up and speaking out. Considering he's arguing against the very type of actions our own leader defends, I'd love to see the same type of firmness out of ANYBODY in our Congress. I won't hold my breath waiting for a lefty to do it. They're too outraged at execs getting less than one percent of the bailout money in bonuses. The frauds.
Here's another, apparently delivered shortly before the one above:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
I saw that bit on NRO's Corner, where Andrew Stuttaford is now reporting that the speech has gone viral, which Mr. Hannan doesn't mind at all.
I got it through AmericanThinker who updated the post with another Brit doing the same thing. I'll post that one later.
This guy obviously knows nothing about economics. All he knows is conservative ideology that says to cut back government spending.
There is a bit of a recession on as you may have noticed. People are losing their jobs, banks aren't lending, factories are shutting down. Private capital is not investing, it is being hoarded and saved. If government actually spends money appropriately, then orders will be placed for construction, for goods and services, companies will recall workers, buy materials and pay workers. If not, we are stuck right where we are.
Real American thinkers are able to use common sense and realize that the discredited conservative ideology is not going to work.
I agree with DL.
I went to the doctor today in the Clear Lake Medical Center. Hadn't been in a few months. Cristus St. Joseph's Hospital was being built next door. Construction has stopped. I inquired about it and my doctor's nurse told me that the contractor had run out of money and could not get a loan at the bank. The hospital should have been near completion by now. Construction is now on hold and so are all the jobs it would have provided.
Much of the "hoarding", as you put it, is a result of uncertainty. This uncertainty is due to the policies proposed by Obama and the manner in which he is trying to push them through. He's been attempting to ram stuff through so fast that no one has time to really pour over the details, nor is there time for debate on those details because, hell, if we don't act fast, it'll be catastrophic and beyond repair. Or at least that's how Obama & Co. has framed the situation.
DL, I don't believe you'd know a real American thinker if he smacked you upside the head. For it's not real American thinkers who believe conservative ideologies have been discredited, since they haven't. Of course if you have an example, I'd be more than happy to hear it and then show why you're wrong. Good luck to ya.
Marshall, the uncertainty was there before Obama - that's why even Bush had a bailout plan. As for pushing things through without a chance for Congress to even read them, that was standard operating procedure when the Republicans were in control and what exactly would you call the Paulson plan with the "do this in three days or the sky will fall" BS.
As for the example, how about de-regulation? We deregulated the finance industry, thanks to Republicans mostly, and according to the discredited conservative "free market" theory, the actors in the market would have done rational things and had they done irrational things the market would have stopped them. That theory is as dead as a doornail.
DL,
Bush's push for stimulus plans and bailout monies was not supported by conservatives. Bush is not someone that I would point to as a strong conservative. Indeed his notion of "compassionate conservatism" allows for too much gov't involvement where it doesn't belong. Yeah, I'd still vote for him over Gore or Kerry. And yeah, I'd still vote for him over Obama, but in the final year or two he was doing the same time of lame crap that Obama is doing now and I don't think you'll find too many comments from me in support of those moves. Like others who no longer visit here, you confuse conservatism with the actions of those who either claim to be conservative or are labeled as such because they are Republicans.
I also don't think you can find too much deregulation from either side of the aisle in the last couple of decades. The only one that comes to mind involves allowing banks to do business in multiple states, if I'm recalling correctly, and no one has a problem with that. Anything close to regulations and oversights were insisted upon by people like Bush and McCain regarding Fannie and Freddie. So you can stuff that myth where the sun don't shine. You have a warped notion of how we got where we are.
Well, you're not recalling correctly. I suggest you look into the record of that great conservative, Phil Gramm of Texas who allowed banks to also own insurance companies and investment banks and then pushed through legislation to prevent the regulation of credit default swaps. And that's just deregulation.
Of course those who have been pushing these ridiculous ideas don't think they are discredited. Thinking that would lead them to believe that they had been stupid, which they probably have some sort of narcissistic problem admitting.
I don't remember hearing much complaint from conservatives about Bush when he was at the height of his popularity. Of course, when it became clear that he was a idiot and a bozo, a few conservatives jumped ship and claimed they never liked him to begin with. Well they could have fooled me.
As for Fannie and Freddie, it was Bush and the conservatives and their bogus "ownership society" that spurred the sub-prime crisis.
You can rewrite history if you like - that seems to be a favorite right-wing pasttime, but some of us remember what actually happened and how Republicans and conservatives (as though there was a difference) were the biggest cheerleaders for every cockamamie scheme perpetrated on the American people for the last 30 years.
Here’s a true story for you DL.
A construction company decided to invest in, and revitalized a building in a “depressed” urban area. As is typical in the construction business, CC (Construction Company) got a construction loan and started revitalizing. After a few draws and the completion of several condo units that were immediately sold, everything was looking good. All loan payments were made on time, construction was ahead of schedule (which is almost unheard of), and the CC had received deposits on several uncompleted units.
Then the shitola hit the fan.
It seems CC’s bank was deemed insolvent by the Feds, so they came in and took over. When they did this, they immediately “called” in the loan on CC. Well CC has their equity tied up in construction in progress. Because of their past stellar credit rating, they easily found another bank that agreed to take over and pay for the previous debt. After all, good bankers want to make money in hard times.
The brain-dead, gov’t controlled, mid-life crises, jaded, bureaucrat’s, decided no, “we” can’t do that, this debt is frozen we won’t release it, we need full payment now. (They apparently have a checklist/form that tells them how to handle all situations).
YES, YOU HEARD RIGHT, CC had alternate financing, but the Gov’t controlled bank won’t relinquish title.
The CC didn’t stand still for this nonsense. They’ve made their most excellent case unto all the layers of gov’t bureaucracy. Well, if you’re even slightly a realist, you can guess how that’s played out so far.
So what you have here is a profit making enterprise that was employing dozens of people and spreading it around, and it came to a screeching halt. All because of incompetent government workers. (Or persons with an ulterior motive)
Welcome to socialist Amerika, were the gov’t and its agents, know what’s best, for you, and for me.
PS. The CC refuses to accept defeat. They continue to fight, despite dwindling resources. The last I heard, the property was going up for government sale in 60 days. I here the Chinese are putting up an impressive bid.
One of the typical ploys of people who have no statistics to back up their claim is to trot out an isolated incident to back up their claims. It has no bearing on the discussion here although it is interesting.
Art, "Much of the "hoarding", as you put it, is a result of uncertainty. This uncertainty is due to the policies proposed by Obama and the manner in which he is trying to push them through."
There is a name for that attitude. It's called "bunker mode".
I have been dealing with bunker mode firsthand in my job. My income has dropped significantly because it depends on money from wealthy clients, who, although they aren't in trouble financially, nevertheless are afraid to make any sizable investments due to the instability of the economy under Obama and his economic policy.
As for the myth of de-regulation, The banks are the most federally regulated institutions in America, and have been for years. This crisis wasn't caused by de-regulation. It was caused by too much regulation.
And by Liberal policies which literally broke the housing market by forcing banks and mortgage companies to make loans to people who had no ability to ever pay them back.
It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see why that plan doesn't work. Economic disaster, like water, runs downhill, and soon other companies started to lose money. What was successful "trickle down" economics has become disastrous "trickle up" catastrophe under Liberal policies.
Economic disaster, unlike water, doesn't seek it's own level, it continues to rise until it drowns everything.
You are seeing the proof before your very eyes, and yet some, like DL, continue to deny the truth.
We Conservative do have a few voices in Congress, but they aren't nearly as passionate as Mr. Hannan. Would to God they were.
I bet Alan Keyes could do the same if the media would just cover him.
DL,
I don't recall any stats from you. All you've given is some vitriol and some vague allusion to Phil Gramm. Be more specific. I'm not up for tracking down what you think you know based on only a name. Geoffrey used to try that and then had the gall to suggest I'm lazy, insisting he do my research. But if you think you've got something of Gramm's that supports your contention, present it and then tell my why one incident is sufficient for your case, but not for Blamin.
Now if you don't remember hearing many complaints about Bush during the height of his popularity, I would say two things in response: #1, you're not likely to during anyone's "height of popularity". That's kinda what made it a "height". and #2, you'd have to be more specific about a time period so I can review it. But there seems to me to have been something at almost every point. Even leading up to the Iraq invasion there were some conservatives that didn't like the notion of going. I recall he had a farm bill that some didn't care for. Believe it. When a right-winger strays, the right wing speaks out.
Bush did NOT spur the sub-prime crisis. This is YOU rewriting history. Though he bought into the idea of home ownership for more people, he didn't initiate the pressure to loosen lending standards. That was all Dem all the way. Bush was accused of fear mongering again when he spoke up for reigning in Fannie and Freddie and it was shit-for-brains losers like Barney Frank who assured all the all was well with those two institutions.
Finally, there IS a difference between Republicans and conservatives and the fact that you don't know this explains a lot about what you say, and leads me to believe that you can't produce anything about any "cockamamie scheme" from a conservative.
Art, I didn't research it, but I seem to remember Phil Gramm was once a Democrat, but switched parties. I don't know if what DL is talking about came before or after the switch.
But anyway, you are right. One doesn't have to be Republican or Democrat to be a Conservative. Or a Liberal for that matter.
Olmypia Snow calls herself a republican and she's a Liberal. As is Susan Collins, and Arlen Spector.
DL, on the subject of rewriting history, you write, "I don't remember hearing much complaint from conservatives about Bush when he was at the height of his popularity."
Well, conservatives at National Review griped about "compassionate conservatism" as early as 1998, over two full years before George W. Bush was even inaugurated.
The farm bill. Steel tarriffs. Harriet Miers. Amnesty for illegal aliens.
Time and again, political conservatives loudly criticized Bush for his policies.
The earliest example I can easily point to is from the de facto leader of popular conservative thought, Rush Limbaugh. His August, 2003, Limbaugh Letter had the cover story, "Whatever Happened to Limited Government?"
The flagship conservative opinion magazine, National Review, soon published a cover story in its issue for Sept 29, 2003, "Swallowed by Leviathan," where Ramesh Ponnuru was highly critical of Bush's spending.
In "The Tempting of Conservatism," in the December 22, 2003, issue, Ponnuru lists the conservatives' greivances up to that point:
"Conservatives have had no trouble denouncing President Bush's steel tarriffs, his Medicare bill, his profligate spending, and so on. Libertarian-minded conservatives have roundly criticized the Patriot Act. Social conservatives have complained that the administration has not done more to resist gay rights."
Then there's "Blowing It" by Ted DeHaven, National Review, April 5, 2004: "The administration's spending is inexcusable, no matter what the White House spin."
Then there's the Oct 24, 2005, cover story: "Spendaholics," where the writers "discuss a president and a party that have veered off-course."
In 2006, in the months leading up to the elections where the GOP lost majority control of Congress, NR ran at least two more cover stories about the party's deteriorating princples.
People like you, who have so tenuous a grasp on the facts, have no business slandering the right by accusing us of having a pastime of rewriting history.
Now, DL, you say that government spending is necessary to stimulate the economy:
If government actually spends money appropriately, then orders will be placed for construction, for goods and services, companies will recall workers, buy materials and pay workers.
First, is there any indication that government is spending money appropriately? We've pointed out the fact that Obama's stimulus bill was pushed through so quickly that it wasn't even read, but you don't deny that: you simply regurgitate the talking point that Bush did the same thing.
Even granting that for the sake of argument, that doesn't ACTUALLY address the fact that there's no good indication that Obama's stimulus spending is appropriate: a great deal of the spending won't even take place for another year (or more).
And the idea that the government should spend our way out of this recession doesn't address the basic question.
WHERE DOES THE GOVERNMENT GET THE MONEY TO SPEND?
Does it raise taxes? Please don't tell me you believe that raising taxes during a recession would have no negative effect on the recovery.
Does it borrow? It seems to me that the economic crisis is the result of debt, so it's not clear how adding debt to debt is a long-term solution for anything.
Or does it start printing money, causing a de facto tax through inflation? It would be massive inflation, if it's to account for Obama's massive spending.
Wow, Bubba. You always come through with the details, as with your 9:37PM comment. It would take me forever to come up with all of that. I have to satisfy myself with vague references to things from memory, unless I stumble upon something. Maybe you ask Google the right questions or you have a pile of stuff on your desk like Medved. If you've got a good trick, by all means, please email me with routine.
When are you starting up your own blog? I love reading your stuff.
Thanks, Marshall!
For what it's worth, I used to have a blog a few years ago -- a fairly personal thing that is now defunct and no longer public -- and the fact is, I just don't have enough of a routine in my life to blog regularly in my own venue. If you notice, I'll go for months off the radar and then have a fairly active burst, as I am right now.
If that ever changes, I'll let you know.
About that list of sources of Bush criticism from the right, I will admit that I'm borrowing from my own research from a year or two ago.
A faux-conservative who has a higher profile than his writing deserves on the merits -- but a much lower profile than he obviously would like -- tried to assert what DL argued, that conservatives were never vocal critics of the Bush Administration. It really didn't take much time to prove him wrong, mostly perusing through NR's limited online archives, and I took him to the woodshed.
It wasn't that hard to find the old exchange, and I'm reusing the material because it obviously applies.
"First, is there any indication that government is spending money appropriately?"
Depends on how you look at it I suppose. My husband and I are now getting about $150.00 a month more in our pockets because of the reduction in Fed/wh taxes on our paychecks. That may be trump change to some, but to us it's a good deal of money. We can do a lot with 150 bucks a month...including spending it if we want!!!
Post a Comment