Your argument about the FAA is disingenuous and you know it. So is your claim that "greed" by private business caused either the housing crisis or an increase in the price of gas. Why aren't you using Fanny Mae or Freddie Mac as examples of what a wonderful job the federal government is doing of protecting our liberties? Which party protects them and why weren't they part of the Wall Street "reforms" that were written by Bawney Fwank? If printing more money causes imports to be more expensive, then why have we stopped domestic oil and gas exploration? Why do we have to import any oil at all? The two most regulated sectors of our economy are banking and energy. Is the federal government really protecting us in those areas? Or is the government itself the problem?
That argument is relevant. People have died.....many thousands probably......even if indirectly from the housing crisis. We created the FAA to keep flying safe......to hold the airlines extremely accountable for safety and maintenance. Given the human condition of "greed" and the many ways that it manifests itself when allowed...who is to say that with all of the financial pressures that the airlines are under that without the FAA on their ass all the time some if not all airlines would take more risks with people's lives than would be safe. Taking risks with people's lives and livelihoods is just what happened in the mortgage meltdown that precipitated the Great Recession. Those risks are completely unacceptable and steps need to be taken to outlaw those kinds of people from taking those kinds of risks that affect so many. If greed is at work with the oil speculators causing superficial spikes in the price of oil then it has to be stopped. It is a practice greatly benefitting a select few at the tremendous expense of many. If voters knew for certain this was a cause and effect of exorbitant gas prices it wouldn't take long for them to vote out of office those that would seek to protect that sort of activity.
:roll: why do you always avoid answering Joco"s questions........you always change the topic or go off a cliff somewhere . could it be he is right and you are sooo wrong. he can back it up with knowledge all you have is what you hear on cnn or msnbc..... and lord knows we know they know what is going on it the world they create.... Just wondering.. when it comes to politics. you never answer any of the questions he presents to you...... :wink:
Your arguments are not relevant and they don't even make sense within the context that you provide. I've never heard any conservative or Republican make an argument against the FAA. What are you talking about? As for the price of gas, every political hack in Congress has investigated both the oil companies and Wall Street speculators for more than 100 years without finding anything, because the price of gas consists mostly of taxes and the effect of government monetary policy on imports. You do realize that when there was only one oil company, the price of gas was much lower? Monopolies keep their power by lowering prices, not raising them. That's how they destroy their competition. Only the federal government benefits from higher prices, because they can pay their bills with newly printed money.
The FAA is a governmental agency that regulates and polices private industry at a high cost to taxpayers. Sound familiar? Lifted from an article on the subject of oil price spikes and the cause: "in the wake of the price explosion in the summer of 2008, a bubble that extended to all kinds of commodities, including copper and wheat, a number of observers from George Soros to Hedge Fund manager Michael Masters to former Commodities Future Trading Commission staffer and derivatives expert Michael Greenberg concluded that the underlying supply-and-demand fundamentals couldn’t account for the sharp rise in prices. In the first six months of 2008, US economic output was declining while global supply was increasing. And even if supply and demand were, over the long run, pushing the price of oil up, that alone couldn’t explain the massive volatility in the market. Oil cost $65 per barrel in June 2007, $147 a year later, down to $30 in December 2008 and back up to $72 in June 2009. The culprits, they concluded, were Wall Street speculators." Your questions about banking and the energy industry can be answered by the fact that one....banking.....should have had closer scrutiny and regulation because the three big banks are the ones being investigated for their role in causing the housing crisis. And energy suppliers have had their shady moments....Enron and the rolling blackouts comes to mind. Obviously the banking and energy sectors need greater regulation and scrutiny.
Your President, after EXTENSIVE hearings, testimony and research into the causes of the credit crisis, with a majority in both houses passed one of the most sweeping changes to financial services regulation in our nations history in the Dodd-Frank bill and Consumer Protection Act. Below are his comments at the signing ceremony.....if you have issues with how banks are regulated, your angst can now be properly directed at this administration and the "leadership" of Harry and Nancy....
....now turning our attention to evil energy traders on "Wall Street", it's always helpful to offer some truths to our lib/dem/socialist conspiracy theorists in an honest effort to help them climb from the depths of ignorance.......it is a global world my friend, "Wall Street" didn't do it.....and in all truth, the US is really a bit player in the grand scheme of the oil world.....a drop in the bucket in terms of supply and production, Exxon is a midget in comparison to the vast state-owned enterprises around the globe and soon we will be surpassed by on the demand side by the Asians....facts are always helpful. One other consideration of note for our lib/dem friends is that the vast majority of core commodity contracts are US Dollar based as we continue to be the global reserve currency. As the dollar continues its free-fall due to this administrations failure to address the budget, deficit spending and entitlements, the weaker dollar in and of itself will inflate the price of commodities.....so in this instance, yes it is Obama's fault......carry on.
re: FAA I still don't know what you're talking about or what the FAA example is supposed to prove. Were you afraid of airplanes as a child? re: George Soros Un-smeggin-believable. George Soros...the great billionaire sugar daddy of the Left is your source? Don't tell me...let me guess...he's come to the conclusion that free markets don't work. Was I close? He's been working night and day to destroy free markets for decades, despite the fact that the world's most notorious speculator is HIM! Wowza!
Isn't that an oxymoron? It's relative at best, fantasy at its heart and a tool of control at its worst. What is decent to one, is not decent to another thereby eliminating the possibility of ever potentially achieving the foolish notion of 'common good.' Your heart is good, but the head's gone sour. You aren't thinking these things to their logical conclusion.
That's the only defense that this administration has, but since everything they've done has never been done before, how do we know when to say "enough" and return control of the economy of the traditional job creators? Can we at least agree to stop the record spending somewhere short of bankruptcy?
Also....Chrysler announced last week they have paid back their bailout so who does that leave out that has stiffed the taxpayers? Do you think financial collapse was a better deal than the bailouts? Should AIG and other banks get federal bailouts while the American homeowner just....as effing usual in everything these days.....gets the shaft?
Bailouts were only one part of the equation. What about the spending that continues? Even the nearly one trillion dollars in "stimulus" money that was spent as payoffs to Obama supporters is a drop in the bucket compared with what's going on now. Obama and his Chicago gangsters have spent more money than all previous administrations combined and what did our peerless leader do? He proposed a budget with ZERO spending cuts. Even the lib/Dem leaders in Congress called his budget DOA, because it put our economy on a certain path to destruction. Where will this insanity end? Permanent high unemployment levels like Europe? Sky high inflation that crushes the poor? Stag-flation like the Jimmy Carter era? Or do we fix the problem with dramatic reductions in federal spending and fairer, lower tax rates? :idea:
Data please? That sounds preposterous because it's been two years vs. 8 for W and W started two wars and implemented Homeland Security. It is striking the increase in Federal spending Bush vs. Clinton. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms Bush took spending up more than just a few notches.......shockingly so. He spent like a drunken sailor. And that is complete rot about Obama spending more than all others combined. Look at the historical table and get back to me when you are back on track.
I'm sorry...I must have missed the post where JO'Co gave Bush credit for anything resembling fiscal restraint.... However; http://blog.heritage.org/?p=4210