Obama's Overreaching Economic Policies

[bytor2112]

The Troubled Assets Relief Program, which has not yet been used for its supposed purpose (to purchase such assets from banks), has been the instrument of the administration's adventure in the automobile industry. TARP's $700 billion, like much of the supposed "stimulus" money, is a slush fund the executive branch can use as it pleases. This is as lawless as it would be for Congress to say to the IRS: We need $3.5 trillion to run the government next year, so raise it however you wish -- from whomever, at whatever rates you think suitable. Don't bother us with details.

This is not gross, unambiguous lawlessness of the Nixonian sort -- burglaries, abuse of the IRS and FBI, etc. -- but it is uncomfortably close to an abuse of power that perhaps gave Nixon ideas: When in 1962 the steel industry raised prices, President John F. Kennedy had a tantrum and his administration leaked rumors that the IRS would conduct audits of steel executives, and sent FBI agents on predawn visits to the homes of journalists who covered the steel industry, ostensibly to further a legitimate investigation.

The Obama administration's agenda of maximizing dependency involves political favoritism cloaked in the raiment of "economic planning" and "social justice" that somehow produce results superior to what markets produce when freedom allows merit to manifest itself, and incompetence to fail. The administration's central activity -- the political allocation of wealth and opportunity -- is not merely susceptible to corruption, it is corruption.

More here.

[a-train]

Economic planning is nothing more than favoritism every time. It matters not whether Obama or Bush does it, it is still favoritism.

-a-train

Edited May 16, 2009 by a-train

[Hemidakota]

In the end, the government will collapse under its own bankruptcy.

[utcowboy]

The Scary part Hemi is, where does that leave us? The little guy just trying to sirvive?

[Maxel]

The Scary part Hemi is, where does that leave us? The little guy just trying to sirvive?

Thank the Lord for the Gospel.

[Aesa]

Thought you'd 'like' this bytor.

Obama Says U.S. Long-Term Debt Load ‘Unsustainable’

I agree with you Hemi, but I do ultimately think that it wouldn't matter who was in government (unless we're talking a Ron Paul type of government) it would still happen. I do think, though, that McCain would have been a 'lesser of two evils' because like Bush he cannot articulate himself anywhere near as well as Obama can.

People could see through the shortcomings of the Bush administration very easily (as they would've with McCain), but Obama is a great professor of sophistry.

My question to you Maxel, and thank-you for your post, is one I've been wondering about for a while. It's more directed at the Church, but you and others on here certainly are the Church so I think it's relevant to ask.

When people can't afford to purchase their food, will you? (This is a collective question as in will "The Church" and will you as members?)

Edited May 16, 2009 by Aesa

[Maxel]

My question to you Maxel, and thank-you for your post, is one I've been wondering about for a while. It's more directed at the Church, but you and others on here certainly are the Church so I think it's relevant to ask.

When people can't afford to purchase their food, will you? (This is a collective question as in will "The Church" and will you as members?)

The Church emphasiizes preparation for disasters. Currently, the goal is for every member to have a one-year supply of food and other needed items. When others can't afford to purchase their food, people who have prepared for just such a crises won't need to buy food- they'll already have enough to weather the storm.

[DigitalShadow]

The Church emphasiizes preparation for disasters. Currently, the goal is for every member to have a one-year supply of food and other needed items. When others can't afford to purchase their food, people who have prepared for just such a crises won't need to buy food- they'll already have enough to weather the storm.

They just won't have anywhere to put the food once they are evicted from their house.

[Dravin]

They just won't have anywhere to put the food once they are evicted from their house.

The council to avoid excessive debt and to put something away for a rainy day is aimed towards that end. You are right though, if you lose your house it's kinda hard to fit your year of food storage into a car.

[Maxel]

They just won't have anywhere to put the food once they are evicted from their house.

It's more than possible, by being smart, to stock up on a year's supply of food without going into any debt at all. Like Dravin said, the Church counsels against debt (except for a house, education, and sometimes a few other necessities). A Mormon who has a year supply of food is most likely a Mormon who lives fiscally enough to not be in danger of eviction.

[DigitalShadow]

It's more than possible, by being smart, to stock up on a year's supply of food without going into any debt at all. Like Dravin said, the Church counsels against debt (except for a house, education, and sometimes a few other necessities). A Mormon who has a year supply of food is most likely a Mormon who lives fiscally enough to not be in danger of eviction.

My comment was mostly tongue in cheek, but I've actually thought about personally getting some food storage before. Then I realized that I'm currently renting and if I ran out of money, I would be evicted before I ran out of food at this rate so food storage would only really help my situation in case of the the complete collapse of society which I think is far less likely than me losing my job.

Edit: Also, even if I "owned" a home, unless the mortgage was completely paid off, the situation would be the same. Sure I could have savings to make the next few payments, but then why not also simply save the money I would have spent on food storage for when it is needed?

Edited May 19, 2009 by DigitalShadow

[a-train]

Food storage is for the purpose of having food when it is not available. It may be that no amount of money will buy good food. Perhaps the trouble could be a disease and the family must live on food already stored up before the outbreak of that disease. We have also been counseled to save money. We should do both.

-a-train

[DigitalShadow]

Food storage is for the purpose of having food when it is not available. It may be that no amount of money will buy good food. Perhaps the trouble could be a disease and the family must live on food already stored up before the outbreak of that disease. We have also been counseled to save money. We should do both.

-a-train

I agree that there are many cases where food storage would be useful, but there are also many cases where it would be much less useful, such as getting laid off when you don't completely own a home. I admire the preparedness of many people who have food storage and think that in general it is a good idea, but in my own personal current situation I believe the best option is simply to save away as much money as I can rather than food since I believe there is a much greater possibility that I will run in to financial trouble and wish I hadn't spent all that money on food storage.

So basically given the choice between food storage and financial savings (since I can't really afford both), I prioritize saving money first because it is more likely to come in handy, but I do plan on having both eventually.

[jadams_4040]

More here.

Uh, it was bush and republicans who set up the rules on this one, did we forget?:)

[Just_A_Guy]

It's Bush's fault that Obama ultimately got the reins of a program he'd been pushing all along, and then steered it away from its (formerly) universally-acknowledged intended target?

[Maxel]

It's Bush's fault that Obama ultimately got the reins of a program he'd been pushing all along, and then steered it away from its (formerly) universally-acknowledged intended target?

YES!!! NOW you finally get it. Bush is the source of all evil, depending on who you ask. To some others, it's Obama.

DigitalShadow- sorry I missed the tone of your post. I'm not so good at reading tone into posts; my bad.

[bytor2112]

Uh, it was bush and republicans who set up the rules on this one, did we forget?:)

TARP I was passed by the Democratic controlled Congress and most of the funds are being spent/lent by Obama. TARP II is all Obama. Read the article and try to be objective and honest if possible. Obama is violating the terms of the agreement....not Bush.