Sunday, December 14, 2008

Our First Socialist President

It's 2016. The Presidential election is coming up and the talking heads, economists, and political analysts write books and chatter on tv about the great socialist expansion of the United States of America. Industries have been nationalized, and the country carries a dangerous amount of debt, much of it held by the other major global power, China. But the focus is not on Obama. It is on our 43rd President, George W. Bush.

In recent months, Bush has presided over the largest expansion of government into private industry in the history of America. We are all acutely aware of his and the Congress' penchant for spending; the deficit has spiraled upwards during his presidency, throwing out all of the old ideals of Republican fiscal restraint. But this latest intrusion of government into having a stake in so many private industries is not just another spending bender. It sets a new precedent for the nationalization of any industry the government deems necessary. In a capitalist society, this has downright ruinous implications for our future.

Capitalism thrives on free markets in which there is inherent risk and reward. The higher the risk, the higher the chance for great reward. Many innovators fail, but for the chance at grabbing the brass ring, many entreprenuers continue to strive, sometimes at great peril to their financial and personal circumstances. In a country where the government swoops in and artificially props up certain businesses and prices at taxpayer expense, risk and reward are diminished. There is only so much money the taxpayers can reasonably afford before the incentive to work harder is thwarted. And because innovators in a government funded environment cannot expect great reward, there is less incentive to go above and beyond to create that new world changing technology. If, for example, the new technology creates a life saving medicine, and government runs healthcare, there will either be price controls placed on the drug or it will be rationed to keep expenses down. The end result is less innovation, and a slower growing economy. Without new ideas and creation, the pie never grows. In countries in which government does not allow businesses to fail, taxpayers shoulder the greatest burdens, and risk and reward are mimimized, the same old worn out pieces of the pie are just shuffled around again and again.

I cannot imagine why George Bush believes this is the best road for our country to take. Perhaps he does not understand the ramifications, particularly with the looming inauguration of a President who believes down to his core that this is the direction our country should take. Perhaps he does not want the failure of so many huge businesses tarnishing his legacy. But in reality, Bush is doing the most damage to his legacy with these very actions. He is setting us about on a dangerous path, making it easier for Obama to come in and finish the job, all under the auspices of a national emergency. When we look back in 2016, we'll wonder how our country changed so fundamentally, so quickly, and with nary a peep from we the people.

2 comments:

Noel said...

So, there shouldn't be price controls on life-saving medicine?
We sholuld allow the drug companies to charge what they please and make it so that the poor cannot afford to save their sick children?
Scientists and doctors are only interested in finding cures for the money it could potentially make them? If no one would benefit financially from a cure for cancer, it wouldn't be manufactured?
What if these cures are found due to charitable contributions? Are the cure-finders then free to charge what they please for it, even though their discovery is the result of the tax-free money donated to them?
What you describe is social darwinism in its worst form. We should not allow others to suffer and die because it's better for the economy. That is the poisonous "I've got mine" mentality that is destroying this country.
Good, hard-working people are going bankrupt paying for their loved one's hospital bills. Good, hard-working people's jobs are in danger due to the actions of their over-paid CEO's. Good, hard-working people are visiting their local food pantry because of sky-rocketing food costs.
If people cannot afford food, should we turn our backs and let them starve?
If someone doesn't have a job in these days when unemployment is at a 26-year high, are we to assume that they're just slackers who deserve no aid?
It's easy when you have money and have a job and have no family health/financial crisis to pass judgement on those less fortunate than you.
I work in the financial sector, and I can tell you that credit-worthy borrowers are being lended to. The Banks are clamoring to lend to credit-worthy borrowers, the trouble is, there just aren't that many left. Between mortgages, student loans, car loans and everything else, people's credit just isn't what it used to be.
You offer no plausible answers to this crisis, you only complain about the way it's being handled. Your big wise answer is for the government to butt-out and do nothing. Great idea, that's what landed us in the Great Depression. Go get a degree in economics and public policy and then come back and share your commentary. Until then, this topis is above your pay grade.

http://www.jerry-hill.com said...

Please

Thanks for saying the things you say. I would have thought Americans would have these things embedded in their hearts and minds.

Please continue to sound the alarm. Wake up as many of us as you can.

We have a SEC that is supposed to be a watch dog over publicly traded companies. DO THEY have authority to watch CEO salaries? If not, Why not?

You want to steal from the PUBLIC (stock selling/ownership)then comply with rules. Salary caps based upon profit to be distributed back to the stock holders. Kinda like our congress. Salaries based upon GNP or profit per America.

The problem is, there are 600 or so of them controlling a major Union of salaried employee votes, (gsa) just like the corporate CEO's controlling the corporations.

Stock holder safety should be written in (congress and corporation laws) salary and benefits reduced to fit the quality of life being experienced by the stock/stake holders. US Americans. USA

On and on I could rant, but unless we/the people unite into a bunch we are going to continue to be run by criminals who are stealing the land from the brave and creating a land of the free(communism). Jerry D. Hill