In actual real-world tests, it’s been the the socialist governments that have fixed problems left, unsurprisingly, but Conservative governments. I can think of three examples in Canada ALONE.

First, we had the Romanow government in Saskatchewan, that finally got the government’s books in order. The Doer government in neighboring Manitoba, also from the same “socialist” party, who managed to fix the disaster that was the Gary Filmore government. The more stellar example of “socialist” cleanups was the Liberal government under Jean Chretien, though I grant you that much of the cleanup was done by screwing the poor and shifting many problems to the provincial level.

I could add the Glen Clark NDP government in BC as another, as they managed to fix much of the mess Van Der Zalms SoCred’s left, but Clark was hounded out of office for rather petty corruption (got a kitchen remodel).

People think of Canada as some liberal bastion. It’s not. It’s rather more adherent to “market disciplines” than even the US, which is why Obama can slam forward gobs of subsidies for US industries but our government steadfastly refuses to do the same, or even retaliate (because Harper, like Ignatieff is a Yankee tool).

The question is do you reward the behaviour? I suggest either voting third party, or spoiling your ballot.

Better still, consider find any group that proposal Electoral College reform (assuming you do not live in Maine or Nebraska). The two-party system has a scam where all they need to get is 50% + 1 vote, thereby cementing themselves bastions and “free” electoral college votes. By forcing state electors to based on vote percentages, goes a long way to making the US electoral map more purple.

The whole argument is that it’s not a free market when the government is intervening, which makes sense to me.

That is so very true. What’s funny is how those who continually preach “market forces” to their employees and customers are always the first to run to government for taxpayer help.

The important question is which side does the government favour? The broader public, or vested self-interest that has curried favour through lobbying (legal corruption) of public employees.

That is, using money to make money, in lieu of actually delivering goods and services.

The US financial industry is based on faith, whether you like it or not. It’s probably the biggest bubble in all of human history. The only thing that keeps it going is the goodwill and sacrifice of the Chinese people.

Reinstitute usury laws. One legal approach would be to extend financial services regulation by using trade across state lines, but I guarantee you I’d have better luck crossing the Grand Canyon on a thread of dental floss. That has to be done. Once the moneylenders get going, they cannot be stopped.

Adam Smith warned of it. Thomas Jefferson warned of it. Heck, no major religion allows for it. If you read Leviticus (if memory serves), one can be punished by stoning if you collected interest on loans.

The repeal of usury in 1979 is what has eviscerated American manufacturing and brought on the need for bubble after bubble to create the illusion of “growth”.

What I really dislike is how people use these clever little sayings, highly reductionist, yet has no justification in reality. If we take the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba in Canada, two stellar examples, it took two socialist parties to clean up the mess previous Conservative governments made. Maggie Thatcher, as she always has been, has it totally B-A-C-K-W-A-R-D-S. You can even add the province of British Columbia into the mix. As bad as the NDP and Glen Clark was, he was definitely no Bill Van Der Zalm when it came to corruption level and leaving a boondoggle mess.

Right now in BC, we have yet another conservative government (don’t let the Liberal name fool you) that is making a mess of things, and I’m not just referring to the 2010 Olympics here! They’ve been taking cost-cutting measures that will unbelievable defer costs into the near future so they can push their silly tax cut agenda. As always, it’s going to take a socialist government to clean the mess these “freemarket” disciples leave behind…

Now, back to the topic at hand, Obama. This guy is about as socialist as Pat Buchanan, and during the primaries when I read up on Obama, I was literally amazed at how much more progressive Hillary was than Obama ever had been. I have to say that Clinton was definitely not my first choice, but when it came down to Hillary and Obama, the choice was clear. Actually it wasn’t even a choice at all. I tried to warn people but I guess they thought that a black male Democrat HAD to be a liberal.

Where am I going?

Look at the health care “debate”. It’s now making the rounds that Obama is looking for support from the Left, even after all the repeated slaps in the face he gave them. His commission had to be shamed into allowing a SINGLE single-payer advocate in.

What I’m seeing is a bit of desperation as the far-right in the US is driving the agenda ever more to the right, with complicity from the MSM. Obama, trying to play the centrist, is trying to stoke up his “base” so he can compromise … exactly where the health-care industry PAID Obama and other key Democrats to be.

Anyway this works out, the health-care industry wins. If the “Democrats” win, things will pretty much be status quo. If the Republicans win, the health-care industry just wins a little bit more…

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/stimulus/2009/02/05/cbo-stimulus-bill-could-meet-obamas-job-creation-goal-in-short-term.html

Some money for states was cut by the Republicans, but billions still went to the states. It kept teachers, policemen and firemen in their jobs. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090718/ap_on_re_us/us_governors_convention

I am not sure you really understand what was done. From the begining it was planned that the stimulus job creation would take time to kick in. It still takes time to get the shovel ready infrastructure jobs going.

“In his weekly radio address on Jan. 10, 2009, Barack Obama said the No. 1 goal of his economic stimulus plan is to create 3 million new jobs in the next two years. Less than 20 percent of them will be government jobs.”

WHAT PART OF “TWO YEARS” DO YOU NOT GET?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28695368/

1) Bringing the housing market to a durable bottom,

2)Usury regulations,

3)Bankruptcy reform, and

4)Restore Glass-Steagall

As Denninger wrote over the weekend:

“Do not be fooled – the crisis is not over, and we have solved nothing – we have merely been granted a short reprieve in which to do so, or suffer the consequences of our failure to act.”

Why is common sense so frequently overlooked or pooh-poohed? Or maybe it goes back to that old Will Rogers quote:

“Common sense ain’t so common, otherwise more people would have it.”

Just taking this section and summarizing (with merciless chopping by me), it says the following:

1) Glass Steagall Act of 1933 established the FDIC. Purpose: to prevent bank runs.
2) It asks ‘why wasn’t there private insurance on banking activity available’ like there is/was in auto, home, etc?
3) It describes the concept of “moral hazard” whereby certain types of events cannot be insured against because the very act of providing insurance would make the event more likely to occur.
4) It points out that banks had/have it “within their power to guard against a bank run” in the first place–they can have keep up to 100% reserves in the vault, doing business only by charging fees for checking and storage services.
5) When banks choose to keep a tiny amount in reserves, they are taking a huge risk. (These days they only have to keep 10% in reserves.) Bank runs become highly likely.
6) No insurer in their right mind would insure a bank that is so exposed to risk.
7) By the government creating the FDIC, it circumvented market forces that otherwise would have forced banks to be more conservative. Now the taxpayer is forced to be the insurer and the banks can take more risk because government bails out the goofballs that miscalculate risk and screw up.

The whole argument is that it’s not a free market when the government is intervening, which makes sense to me.

To talk about a real impact in only 4 months is a bit of a joke.

The real question you should be asking is where would the economy be now if there was not stimulus?

You can argue about the base number, but the stimulus was designed to lead to an unemployment rate 1.5 to 2.0 points lower than would otherwise be the case. Another words if unemployment ends up reaching 10%, it might have very well been 11.5% or 12% without the stimulus.

There is evidence the stimulus programs can work and do what they are designed to do, stimulate. See this article in the WSJ on China’s stimulus.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124768125855446621.html

Here is the first quarterly review report:

http://www.newsweek.com//frameset.aspx/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.recovery.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FFINALQ1_ARRA_Report.pdf

To attack the stimulus at this point so early in the game is nothing but pure politics.

The only new challenge is the decline in jobs has been much greater than most have estimated (a good argument for a second or larger stimulus). Bush basically left the country in worse shape than people thought.

The Gramm-Leach-Billey Act did not cause our current situation. The issue was the Community Reinvestment Act 0f 1977 and the subsequent changes in 89, 92, 94, 95 etc. forcing banks and mortgage companies to lend money to poor people who should not qualify meeting the social engineering impulse of liberals. It was exasperated by the irresponsible lending to the unqualified by Freddie and Fannie controlled by the government. These people who could not afford the loans and therefore should not have received them began defaulting causing massive hemorrging in the housing and credit markets. The situation was made worse by the devaluing of financial institutions by mark to mark passed by Dems.

It didnt matter that banks held the mortgage or mortgage companies held the mortgage. The loaning to the unqualified would have artificially inflated the housing market and the defaults would have caused the deflation and the credit crunch. When republicans called for INCREASED OVERSIGHT of Freddie and Fannie the Dems blocked it.

The Gramm-Leach-Billey Act did nothing to cause this problem but blaming reduced oversight of private citizens while trusting government agencies to run rampant fits liberal ideology.

2) Take these all-powerful manipulative mega-financial outfits like Goldman Sachs by the scruff of their beastly necks and rub their noses in it.

The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in the United States and included banking reforms, some of which were designed to control speculation.[1] Some provisions such as Regulation Q, which allowed the Federal Reserve to regulate interest rates in savings accounts, were repealed by the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980. Provisions that prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed on November 12, 1999, by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.[2][3]

From Wikipedia – note the last sentence: banks owning other financial institutions; that’s what created, in large part, the Great Depression and when Phil Gramm and the Republicans forced that repeal through, the banks did the same thing all over again.

Sonic Ninja Kitty: I also respect your opinions and your quest for truth. The problem here is that ideologues and propagandists (of all stripes) have taken over the debate. Also, the subject is huge and merits real attention and study to see it all.

I think the one salient point is that many of the proponents of ‘free’ trade, including Mr. Doyle, are hopelessly naive about human nature: they make the fatal assumption that the market will somehow police itself to ensure that fairness is the order of the day. Time after time we have been shown by events that this simply is not true, if left to its own device the ‘free’ market will be overwhelmed by cheats, thieves and con men. This happens every time we relax the rules. The answer is obvious: a ‘free’ market for entrepreneurs and traders, yes, but under severe regulation with draconian punishments for transgressions, very strictly enforced.
If they don’t like it, they can go somewhere else and wreak havoc, I, for one am tired of cleaning up their messes.