Has the Obama Administration Destroyed America?
The short answer: “No”
The somewhat longer answer: “Well, at least not yet.”
It’s true that our citizens are not dropping dead in the streets of disease and starvation. Nor have Skynet’s robots begun ravaging the landscape. Much to the consternation of many Republicans, President Obama has stubbornly refused to declare America a Muslim Nation and set fire to the Constitution on the East lawn. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be concerned, though.
This week Tim Geithner has laid out his five point vision for the future of government regulation of the financial industry. Unlike many of my conservative correspondents, I do not view the current collapse of the economic system as a failure caused by too much regulation. There are some areas where some regulation is clearly needed and was found lacking, as Geithner points out.
Our framework for financial regulation is riddled with gaps, weaknesses and jurisdictional overlaps, and suffers from an outdated conception of financial risk. In recent years, the pace of innovation in the financial sector has outstripped the pace of regulatory modernization, leaving entire markets and market participants largely unregulated.
There were aspects of the continually evolving financial services sector where regulation was nearly non-existant. Left to their own devices, some of the largest actors were faced with a choice of exercising restraint and prudent practices or making as much money as they possibly could as fast as could be managed, regardless of exposure or risk to their clients and the larger system. We already know which path they chose.
The existing framework also allowed criminals such as Bernie Madoff to act out in the open while they ripped off thousands of people to the tune of billions of dollars, and nobody was the wiser. Obviously some rules and regulations are in order.
Geithner’s five point plan, however, carries an ominous tone. It is entirely possible to expand existing regulation to cover emerging markets and sectors without effectively turning the industry into a subsidy of the Federal government. Two parts in particular have my antenna raised. First there is this bit:
[W]e will establish a resolution mechanism that allows for the orderly resolution of any financial holding company whose failure might threaten the stability of the financial system. This authority will be available only in extraordinary circumstances, but it will help ensure that the government is no longer forced to choose between bailouts and financial collapse.
We certainly need more tools than just bailouts, but who will define and establish what constitutes an extraordinary circumstance? What limits, checks and balances will be put on their authority to act?
I’m also not to sure about this one:
Fifth, and finally, we live in a globalized world, and the actions we take here at home — no matter how smart and sound — will have little effect if we fail to raise international standards along with our own. We will lead the effort to improve regulation and supervision around the world.
I’m not even sure what that means, but leading supervision around the world has exactly the wrong ring to it. Some good may come from this, but given the administration’s appetite for expanded centralized power (the exact complaint I had about Obama’s predecessor, by the way) I believe we need to keep a very close eye on exactly what Geithner is cooking up here.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
27 Responses to “Has the Obama Administration Destroyed America?”
“Has the Obama Administration destroyed America?”
******
No, the Cheney Administration did that just fine. I knew this selective amnesia would settle in right about now *looks at watch/calendar*.
The Obama Administration, considering the utter wreckage they were left with, is doing a commendable job.
I'll await more details, but I'd also agree that (absent the details) the flags you raise are the right ones to raise, the most significant, potential causes for concern.
America wasn't destroyed by President Bush and won't be destroyed by President Obama. No disrespect to you Jazz at all, but to even mention that an American President is, can, or will “destroy America” is just… weird. We have three branches of government along with state, county, city, and township government to insure that DOESN'T happen.
The very words “Destroying America” is so loaded and toxic. I mean were talking about the very fabric of a society being axed, crushed, and stomped upon. That's what I absolutely hate about political discourse these days. We throw nuclear bombs out there and watch the fireworks. But do we really see the target brothers and sisters?
Ominous and serious concerns already are being raised by the conduct we've already begun to observe in Washington. I wonder to what extent the people in Washington misread public opinion (and the 2006 and 2008 election results) and become too ambitious, too reckless, and even more overreaching.
Pete, just wait until they move to openly control content as well as business operations by cable companies, provision of services and infrastructure (even if you lose money at it), etc. You're warned.
* * *
“leading supervision around the world has exactly the wrong ring to it”
To some, hopefully most, of us, yes. However, to some, “benevolent global hegemony” (to quote a neo-con phrase to which left-psychotics overreacted and still do) is perfectly okay when it's leftist goals that are sought.
Even a literal parsing and analysis of “leading supervision around the world” is cause for concern. Just imagine a government cartel (USA, Europe, other governments involved) coordinating and “harmonizing” regulations and taxes (the way to prevent people from voting with their feet against oppression, and the way to prevent “unnecessary, needless, destructive, harmful competition” among nations as well as by businesses). This is more broad potentially in scope than just attacking offshore tax havens (which the Obama administration threatened to do already, with appeals to the bell-curve low-tail in speaking about this). Just wait until there is coordination someday (which I mentioned a _long_ time ago) against these tax havens, but also with harmony in regulations and in _taxes_ (making the upward “ratchet” impractical to avoid). Don't be surprised when this happens once population aging boosts the need for tax revenues. (The coordination of regulations and other laws is even more sinister in its implications.)
“Harmonization” has been sought within the EU and there's no reason why lefties won't seek it between the USA and the EU and other nations in the future. That's with regulations, laws, and _taxes_. You're warned (again).
“we need to keep a very close eye on exactly what Geithner is cooking up here”
Note that he's a good lightning rod for deflection of criticism, to the extent what's being wrongly done in Washington actually is Obama's idea.
T_Steel:
I see what you're saying and recognize hyperbole does nothing to advance a topic of discussion. However I must point out that “destroying America” can be accomplished without wide-spread destruction, either public or otherwise. All that is required is a federal framework allowing the dismissal of Constitutional protections for American citizens.
This framework is hardly novel in our nation's history (Civil War, WWII, etc), but it was greatly enhanced by the Bush administration and still maintained by Obama's administration. Our government now has the ability to designation ANYONE in this country as such a grave threat to society that they will no longer be afforded protection under the Constitution. This ability is almost exclusive to the Executive branch, effectively removing checks and balances.
So while it may be absurd to ask whether an American President is overseeing the destruction of the country, it is incumbent upon us to realize the facility for such actions does exist – if not the intent to use them – and this represents a clear and present danger to all of us.
Can we stop with the histrionics like “destroy America”. Good Gawd, I'm sick of hearing the hyperventilating from the right. I swear you all sound like you should be holed up with survivalists on Ruby Ridge. Obama won. He won by a larger marging than Bush in 2004. He can govern as he sees fit. That's the way elections work. They do have consequences. And it's about time there was some regulation in the financial sector. The fact that the collapse of 1 or 2 companies can cause the collapse of the economy not just in the US but around the world, is unacceptable. But for some it's an ok outcome becuase it's the “free market” dontchaknow. I'm thoroughly sick of those 2 words.
I voted for Obama, but he most certainly cannot govern as he sees fit. He can govern within the parameters of his office and when he steps beyond them criticism is entirely warranted.
Sorry, T. I assumed this morning that “destroy America” was so over the top that people would immediately assume that I was making fun of the idea, but perhaps not.
T_Steel,
The President has been steadily given more and more unilateral power and does have the power to bring down “America.”
A lot of the President's new powers have been wrapped up in the idea that he is somehow a Commander-in-Chief over us all in times of war. And of course that state of affairs has been made permanent since we're always involved in some war somewhere.
There is no “destruction” as in annihilation. However, if Sixties-Retread-Lite-2000s people convert the USA into the equivalent of another democratic socialist European nation, with power even much more centralized in Washington, and a great increase in the extent of government interventionism, and left-politicization of the economy and of society, to the extent that is permanent, that _is_ destruction of the USA, of its true nature and heritage, that is. “Progress” toward that is a legitimate fear many have.
Not that I hope for it to happen, but out of curiosity – what would be inherently bad about America becoming more similar to a “democratic socialist European nation”?
Aside from the generic stigma attached to each term of course.
ChrisWWW, so what exactly is “bringing down America”? Because that needs to be explained. When “destroy” and “bring down” are applied on a country-wide scale, we're talking about a devastating, historic, and all-consuming meltdown. Something that sparks Civil War II and the like. Even though I disagree with Obama's economic and health care plans, I don't see destruction brewing on the horizon (just like I didn't see it with former President Bush). Am I missing something? Impending doom around the corner?
Now DLS' point is something I can grasp. And I also have to ask the same question Ethos asked:
“Not that I hope for it to happen, but out of curiosity – what would be inherently bad about America becoming more similar to a “democratic socialist European nation”?
The stigmata (well earned) aren't anywhere as harmful as the government intervention the requirements on businesses that they ill can afford, and higher taxes on workers and even more unsustainable government programs, especially those that are old-age or retirement-related, that already are giving bureaucrats in those countries poor sleep at night.
I actually described what it would mean, which would be harmful, and of course each earning its stigma:
* power even much more centralized in Washington
* a great increase in the extent of government interventionism
* left-politicization of the economy and of society
Don't forget that we don't have decades we can look forward to of living off the protection of some other, more powerful nation militarily (and economically) while we fritter our money on vote-buying in the name of “social solidarity” instead (while making it popular to denigrate that nation, burn its flag, protest its leadership when it's not liberal or Democratic), either.
T-Steel, think also of not only Europe today but what it was like in previous decades. Do we want the USA to be the modern equivalent of something like the United Kingdom was by the end of the 1970s?
(That is a suitable basis for comparison. We've even seen a lukewarm bit of this with the “new” GM.)
Don't any of you watch Star Trek? Inter-galactic socialism is a good thing, thought I'm still trying to figure out how Picard came by that nice horse farm in France.
Envision the future. Everything is regulated and all regulation is benign, wistful and sincerely seeks the common good. No more senseless greed, no more power hungry politicians, no more incompetent bureaucrats. A world order so benificent that even right and left will disappear into common agreement. Ah, that “Brave New World”.
So, stop your whining, those of you who cannot see the light. Humankind is good and fair and unselfish. No more hunger, no more sorrow. All team sports will be played to a tie so that no fan will be disappointed. The lion will down with the lamb….and Paris Hilton will lie down with everybody. Reality will no longer impede our progress.
Yes, America will be destroyed, but only as a necessary step to the great benevolence of the new world order. Brush up on your Esperanto, learn the words to Kumbaya. Pass the Soma; Utopia is around the corner.
[...] Jazz Shaw at Moderate Voice: I’m not even sure what that means, but leading supervision around the world has exactly the wrong ring to it. Some good may come from this, but given the administration’s appetite for expanded centralized power (the exact complaint I had about Obama’s predecessor, by the way) I believe we need to keep a very close eye on exactly what Geithner is cooking up here. [...]
Not that I hope for it to happen, but out of curiosity – what would be inherently bad about America becoming more similar to a “democratic socialist European nation”?
Um, nothing as far as I am concerned. “Democratic socialism” is not a scary word to me. I don't have nightmares about stuff like universal access to health care regardless of ability to pay. We're not even going to get that much in this country, much less systemic democratic socialism.
I do hope for it to happen. I just know it won't.
“* power even much more centralized in Washington
* a great increase in the extent of government interventionism
* left-politicization of the economy and of society”
Well once again I need to ask – what makes these points inherently bad? Simply listing them and '''calling''' them bad doesn't tell me anything. I realize the concepts bring up red flags for some of you, but I'm more interested in whether you can personally articulate these positions or if maybe you're just repeating common talking points with no idea of what they really mean.
<sarcasm>My hard-earned tax dollars would end up supporting lazy n**gers & sp*cs driving…</sarcasm>
You know, Tidbits, you had me sold on the whole Utopian thing until you got to Paris Hilton. I'm not going to lie down with that any time soon.
Ethos, I'll play — but to do so, I'll have to ask a question of my own.
Do you view “democratic socialist European nations” as being particularly innovative? Leading with technology / new business ideas / creative problem solving?
Not talking about individual personal qualities of the people themselves, here, but the overall political / business climate. What say ye?
YES!!!
YES!!!
Eurocopter is the largest helicopter company in the world, Airbus is either the largest or second largest commercial airplane company in the world, Renault, VW and Daimler are the 3rd , 4th or 5th largest car companies in the world, we won't mention trains, or cell-phones( The EU has set the global standard for cellular technology), some of the largest pharmaceutical (Merck, Zeneca-Astra) companies in the world are European, their weapons manufacturing is second to none, the word Exocet ring a bell, when it comes to Nuclear Power no one is as good as the French, and when it comes to Solar Power the Germans are global leaders, and the Danes are global leaders in wind power.
So let me boil it down for you, the EU is the largest economy in the world with one of the highest living standards in the world and you don't get there by sticking your thumb up your ass and sitting on it.
And somehow they manage to do all of this while having universal health care, free education, thirty hour workweeks and 5 weeks paid vacation.
And before you tell me that the reason they can do all of this is that they are totally dependent on the US military umbrella, let me point out that the five big EU countries combined spend about 30% of what we do on their military which is more than enough to kick the shit out of any conventional military other than ours and possibly the Russians.
Oh, and I forgot to mention, their internet makes ours look like a country road next to their sixteen lane super highway.
How does answering my question with a question of your own qualify as “playing” exactly?
I've already stated I don't want the U.S. to become a “democratic socialist European nation,” whatever that is supposed to mean, but I have noticed people (okay, the Right specifically) throw these labels around and more often than not they haven't the first clue what they actually mean in any context outside of, “Well I heard it on fill_in_the_blank_media_show and damned if it doesn't sound bad.”
So if you're going to play, then play. Answer my questions in a substantive way.
And sorry Jazz for not getting the joke. I was in a bad mood this morning after watching thoroughly unqualified individuals (with impressive college careers) totally destroy a project. Didn't realize how much “breaking a foot in someone's ass” was going to affect me. LOL!
Jazz, I liked the part about Skynet robots ravaging the landscape…. As far as Obama not burning the Constitution…. he's too late, the Republicans go there first.
Am I correct in believing that the same Republicans who attacked the Democrats for not pushing for regulation (claiming that suck regulation would have kept us out of this mess we're in) are the same ones who are attacking the Dems now for wanting to pass regulation?
Personally I think it's clear that many companies are beholden to their stock holders (and own self-interests) and will try to game the system where possible.
I think before the government passes any regulations they should look at the policies and procedures of “good” companies as a guideline in developing regulation that makes sense.
I fear the government will over-regulate (and strangulate) what they do not understand. The regulators know which companies are sounder than others and should be reflective of their policies.