Do conservatives or the GOP or whoever have to reflexively oppose EVERYTHING Obama and Congressional Democrats do?
David Frum, former speech writer for Bush, thinks probably not. If we didn't do a stimulus or didn't bail out the banks (started under Bush) what would have been your answer to the worst recession and financial crisis in 80 years?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I don't think that it is so much the issue that the 'whoever' oppose everything the obama admin. is doing, but more an issue that the American people are in opposition to the way that GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES are spending away our freedom!
My answer would have been to let it all collapse like it did for our grandparents, they came through it stronger and with more character for it! Let the American farmer grow food to feed the American people, let the need to survive through sacrifice and hard work bring out the innovative nature of FREE MEN. It does not take much education to know that we, as a country, are going bankrupt and throwing good money at bad has helped bring us down!
The reason the bailout was such a bad idea is because you cant fix something by throwing money at it. I agree that the businesses that took the bailouts should have been allowed to fail. throwing good money at bad business is a farce. It's not the amount of money that was the problem, it was the management of money that caused the problem. subsidizing bad practice is wrong. I knew that WHEN W. started all of this mess, that most of these companies were going to go bankrupt anyway. I was right. The free market is a wonderous system, you have winners and you have losers, but it creates the best opportunity for all to prosper. At the same time, it weeds out bad business, which is what should have been allowed in the first place. Bad business is bad for the economy, so why bail it out?
As a conservative, I am not against the idea of Obama doing something to help the country. I just wish he would get started. He has been in office for 11 months now.
It's okay for conservatives to disagree with a Republican President, AND agree with a Democratic one from time to time.
I disagreed with W's bailouts. I think businesses SHOULD be allowed to fail... no matter how big they are. I disagreed with many things W did. For instance, he failed to get anything done about illegal immigration, and abortion when he had the numbers to do both. You don't see Obama holding back on the issues that democrats hold dear such as socialism. He is going at it full force while he has the numbers.
BTW, I think NAFTA started the whole decline, and the need for bailouts, and NAFTA was started by your good buddy Billary. NAFTA was the beginning of the end. All the jobs that went overseas is what brought this country down. Not terrorists, Now war, Not Bush. A signature on a bill. It may be about to happen again with healthcare if the Dems get their way.
Do some more checking sg, nafta actually evolved from the Canada-Us free trade agreement started in 1988. It just didn't suddenly begin in the bilary years as you call it. cited from...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement
"The agreement came into force on January 1, 1994. It superseded the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement between the U.S. and Canada."
Yeah, because all of our jobs were going to Canadians before NAFTA? NAFTA included Mexico, and now many of our labor jobs have been outsourced, and many of our large companies have moved to Mexico for cheap labor. Bill Clinton signed it into law, even though Daddy Bush had been working on it as well. Regardless of who passed it though, it was a bad idea, and has caused our country irreparable harm.
from Wikipedia:
Industry
Maquiladoras (Mexican factories which take in imported raw materials and produce goods for export) have become the landmark of trade in Mexico. These are plants that moved to this region from the United States, hence the debate over the loss of American jobs. Hufbauer's (2005) book shows that income in the maquiladora sector has increased 15.5% since the implementation of NAFTA in 1994. Other sectors now benefit from the free trade agreement, and the share of exports from non-border states has increased in the last five years while the share of exports from maquiladora-border states has decreased. This has allowed for the rapid growth of non-border metropolitan areas, such as Toluca, León and Puebla; all three larger in population than Tijuana, Ciudad Juárez, and Reynosa. The main non-maquiladora industry that has suffered from NAFTA is the automobile industry.
____________________
The AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY??? You don't say?!?!? Seems NAFTA did great FOR MEXICO! Not so much for the U.S. though. But then, isn't that what being a Democrat is all about... helping the underdog at the expense of the wealthy? Pretty soon we will be the ones needing the help, and I seriously doubt that any other country is going to step up and bail us out. It's time to start looking out for us, and stop being the world's saviors.
Post a Comment