Reagan combined tax cuts with deregulation to create the longest sustained period of economic growth in American history. That said, what is Barack Hussein Obama’s cure for our recent economic downturn? Regulation combined with tax increases. A successful President of the United States took one road and it led to an economic boom but a potential President would choose a path in an opposite direction. What do you think that outcome would be? What is the opposite of an economic boom?
From FoxNews.com:
Obama Rx for Economy: 21st Century Regulations The government must revive the economy by tightening regulations and reforming its own agencies to adjust to the realities of modern finance, Barack Obama said Thursday.
In a speech billed as a major address, the Democratic presidential candidate said most experts agree the U.S. economy is in a recession.
“To renew our economy — and to ensure that we are not doomed to repeat a cycle of bubble and bust again and again — we need to address not only the immediate crisis in the housing market; we also need to create a 21st century regulatory framework, and pursue a bold opportunity agenda for the American people,” Obama said.
“We do American business — and the American people — no favors when we turn a blind eye to excessive leverage and dangerous risks,” he added. emphasis mine
Obama has gone on record several times as being in favor of allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010 when they are due to sunset. This is the equivalent of a tax increase. But to a leftist like Barack Hussein Obama, it is “targeted” because in their minds the tax cuts only benefited the “rich”. Tell that to the family whose income has them in the 10% tax bracket – the working poor – who will see a 50% increase in their tax burden with the sunsetting of the Bush tax cuts. It was those cuts which created the 10% bracket. Tell that to the working lower and middle classes when they get slapped with massive layoffs because their employers cannot afford to pay the larger tax burden created when these tax cuts expire. Remember people – it is those who have economic mobility who create jobs for the rest of us. By slapping them with a tax increase the money available to these people to expand business and make investments dries up. This will, and I’m not speculating I know for certain, this WILL create a higher unemployment rate.
One road would lead to prosperity the other to economic ruin. Reagan proved which road is which. Why would anyone vote for someone who advocates a road in the opposite direction?
The current problem is a credit problem. Banks extended loans and credit to people who were incapable of paying their bills. The last thing the government needs to do is involve itself. Mr. Obama’s “solution” will only compound the problem.
![[del.icio.us]](http://gribbitonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://gribbitonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Reddit]](http://gribbitonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/reddit.png)
![[Sphere]](http://gribbitonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/sphere.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://gribbitonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Technorati]](http://gribbitonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/technorati.png)
![[Twitter]](http://gribbitonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/twitter.png)
![[Email]](http://gribbitonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
That all sounds quite disturbing. More central government regulations and funds and oversight committees. We already have too many of all of these, they already cost too much, and they helped inflate the housing bubble.
The Fed manipulated interest rates and provided easy credit to banks, which passed along the low rates to mortgage customers. With property values increasing due to high demand for artificially-low credit, the banks could lend to people who couldn’t afford payments and just re-sell the house for a profit. Some regulation.
State attorneys general were concerned about the poor lending practices of banks and tried to step in. They were prevented by the Bush administration’s federal preemption through the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. So the federal government prevented the states from preventing all the bad loans.
There’s just nothing in Obama’s speech that tackles the problem of the already-existing government institutions abusing their powers. Just give them more power and create more institutions. When the government uses its power to hurt people economically, how does more government power solve the problem?
comment deleted for violations of the comment policy
Gotta love the libs. Amazing how they remind me of King George, and part of the reason the 13 Colonies revolted.
Either we have more regulations or we stop bailing out companies at tax payers expenses.
So we have one candidate which for more regulations. Fine.
Do we have candidate which will prevent spending tax payers money to baliout failed companies?
Actually, yes we do.
I’m not the biggest McCain fan in the world and I’ve even stated that my support is conditional. He has gone on record as opposing pork spending and I for one consider bailouts PORK.
I’ve checked out Ksfq’s Weblog and I’ve noticed that the limited posts are all centered around your opposition to government bailouts. If you think things are bad when the government bails out corporations and banks which are irresponsible, what are your thoughts about libtarded candidates who want to bailout the corporations through the back door. By providing welfare benefits and redistributing the wealth of this nation to those these banks and corporations layoff?
The anti-big corporations morons out there believe that Republican means corporate bailout and corporate welfare.That is not necessarily the truth. Remember, 2006. It wasn’t about the war, it was about spending.