Can anyone?

[wmanion]

Can anyone explain to me how the government bail outs are holding true to the conservative idea of small government? The only thing I have seen over the last eight years are cuts in social programs while government spending is at an all time high. How can anyone whether they be Democrat or Republican honestly believe that more taxes will not have to be raised in order to take care of these bailouts and to pay for a war that has caused more debt to our nation in more ways than one.

Bill

[Daniel]

Can anyone explain to me how the government bail outs are holding true to the conservative idea of small government? The only thing I have seen over the last eight years are cuts in social programs while government spending is at an all time high. How can anyone whether they be Democrat or Republican honestly believe that more taxes will not have to be raised in order to take care of these bailouts and to pay for a war that has caused more debt to our nation in more ways than one.

Bill

I don't see the current 700 B as in billion bail out as holding true to conservative values, that is, the notion of small government. In fact, this bail out is- in point of fact- a nationalization of the morgage industry. That's a big deal, literally. And I think it's kinda funny that no one has owned up to this yet- that is- the word nationalization. We'd like to think that this sort of thing can't happen here.

As yes- taxes are going to have to be raised. I don't see any way around that. I watched my mayor here in NYC (Bloomberg) say as much on one of the Sunday AM TV talk shows. At least he was up-front about it. Will other politico's be as forthcoming about the what is needed? I rather doubt it. We as Americans seem to prefer our myth to the hard truths. During the Reagan Era it was Morning in America after all. And he increased the deficit. What's concervative about that? I say nothing. The party of Lincoln- as I see it- says one thing and does another. Are the democrats any better? Hell no! They all have their hand in the cookie jar as far as I can tell. Everyone has been trying to make a buck. And the buck hasn't stopped anywhere.

Until this past week. The economy almost went off the rails. And it may still if they don't change the regulatory rules. And even if they do, who is going to pay for all those loans when they are sold - most likely- at a loss? Answer: the taxpayer is!

From what I have read, one big contributing factor the this past week's melt down was the legislation signed by Clinton which rolled back many of the New Deal policies- allowing institutions to intertwine with each other. And then the Bush crowd proceeded to deregulate everything in sight, all the while intoning the mantra that the market would regulate itself.

Really?

Well. We're seeing what market forces- ie greedy people - do when no one is watching.

And can I say this? I am not optimistic about things like health care and other social programs: I don't see where the money is going to come from to finance them. The cost of this buy out and the credit carding of two wars may eat us alive. Sorry to be crude. But in the venacular: paypack is a bitch.

[Pablo Rafael]

I registered as a Republican back in the 70's when I was old enough to vote. I believe that government should let free enterprise work. The government needs to control only those things that free enterprise cannot do effectively.

I don't see the current US government and especially the Republican party representing the idea of small government. It seems to be quite the opposite.

The only way free enterprise can work is when businesses are allowed to fail. Those financial instutions that make bad economic decisions need to be allowed to fail. It's rough at the time, but propping up failing businesses with government money only weakens the entire financial system in the long run. I don't buy the idea that these institutions are "too big to be allowed to fail". In the early 1900's the anti-trust laws were enacted to split up large corportations so no single one would be "too big". What ever happened to that idea?

I am more convinced that corporations run the country. How is it that 18,000 people die in this country every year (stats from a NPR segment) because they lack health insurance, and the government cannot find the will or the money to even address the problem. Yet billions of dollars can be found overnight to bail out huge financial corporations. It really shows that the corporations are much more valuable than the people.

Somehow the Republican party has become the party of govermental control. The government wants to control the financial industry. The government wants to control social issues such as gay rights. The government seeks financial control to spend as much money as it wants. The government wants contol of foreign nations. This just dosn't seem to be the Republican party I originally saw it to be.

I also think the Christian right organizations fall into that "corporation" category.

I see the Democrats also controlled by the corporations, but not as greatly so. BTW the documentary The Corporation is well worth putting in your Netflix queue if you haven't seen it.

[Daniel]

Somehow the Republican party has become the party of govermental control. The government wants to control the financial industry. The government wants to control social issues such as gay rights. The government seeks financial control to spend as much money as it wants. The government wants contol of foreign nations. This just dosn't seem to be the Republican party I originally saw it to be.

I also think the Christian right organizations fall into that "corporation" category.

I see the Democrats also controlled by the corporations, but not as greatly so. BTW the documentary The Corporation is well worth putting in your Netflix queue if you haven't seen it.

It's been well-documented that both Republicans and Democrats spend more than 60 % of their time raising money in order to be re-elected. And corporations are the top donors. So- in the end- whom do the politico's serve? Not the people- that's for sure. I really don't see how Democrats are any less greedy than Republicans. After all, it wasn't long ago that the Cllnton campaign was criticised for it's dealing handling of 'soft money'. And what's happened with that issue btw?

I guess the press isn't following that story anymore.

Instead of controlling - which could be taken as a code word of the unfettered ability to make money- the financial industry, I believe that the emphasis needs to be on regulation and oversight it, the very things that the current Treasury Secretary is apparently against.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/22/dirty-secret-of-the-bailo_n_128294.html

Krugman makes some interesting points re this issue in today's Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/opinion/22krugman.html?hp

[Gennee]

I worked in the financial sector for 24 years and know that corporations do run the country. This bailout if passed will be paid by us taxpayers. THe media will not tell what the public needs to know and therefore shares guilt in this complicity.

With the failure of Lehman Brothers don't be surprised if other once impregnable institutions go under. I remember when Franklin National Bank went under in the '70's. At the time, it was the third largest bank in the world if I'm not mistaken. Once again, you have high skilled people falling into the ranks of the working poor, a trend that will continue unless working and poor people create their own media and platform without any government or corporate funds financing it.

Gennee