Thursday, April 9, 2009

And you thought he was a Socialist!

From the National Center for Policy Analysis. I urge you to subscribe to their e-newsletter at


U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner declared last week that some banks will receive huge amounts of new government Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) money even if they don't want it. President Obama, Geithner, et al. tell us they do not want to run companies. But when they fire chief executives, install new ones, remake boards of directors and force mergers, that is exactly what they are doing, says Steve Stanek, a research fellow with the Heartland Institute.

Geithner's announcement that his agency is conducting "stress tests" that could force banks to take more federal money comes just a week after leaders of the nation's largest banks met with Obama and told him they want to pay back the TARP money they have already received, not take more of it.

Last week, he announced he would decide, apparently with no firm guidelines, which companies -- including nonfinancial firms -- could pose "systemic risk" to the financial system; such a designation would give the government unprecedented powers to inject itself into any business it chooses, says Stanek.

All of us -- not just corporate executives and shareholders -- should be shocked and frightened by these actions, says Stanek:

The Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to appropriate money, yet trillions of dollars have been spent, borrowed and committed in the form of various guarantees without congressional approval.

The Constitution also blocks the government from interfering in private contracts; various court rulings since the 1930s have weakened the protections, and now the executive branch is shredding them.

In addition to recent attacks on (admittedly unjustifiable) contractual bonuses at American International Group, the administration has recently moved to impose unjustifiable mortgage "cram downs" that require lenders to rework loans.

These recent actions amount to a fundamental move away from individual rights and toward state corporatism -- better known as fascism, says Stanek.

Source: Steve Stanek, "Obama's moves a step toward fascism," Chicago Sun-Times, April 4, 2009.

For text:,CST-EDT-open04c.article

For more on Economic Issues:


  1. I thought that this could never happen in our country . . . So, WHY are we letting it happen?

    Aren't you a former member of the House of Representatives? Isn't there SOMETHING in the laws of this country that prohibit this sort of travesty from happening?

    PLEASE, don't just sit there and gripe about it, help us DO SOMETHING about this. We have got to stop this before it is way too late!

  2. Hey Leatherneck:

    I don’t know if Øbama is a socialist, or a fascist; what we call him is less important than how he behaves. Here’s what I do know. Øbama does not share our “America First” sentiments. This does not surprise me, since the absence of patriotism was discernible throughout his campaign. But let’s clear the air . . . our government is not now, nor has it ever been perfect. We have domestic problems; we have erred in identifying viable solutions to these issues almost as frequently as we have erred on the international front. But that said, the United States is not a bad country; it is not a bad society. The American people have paid a high price rendering service to the world community. We Americans have interred our fathers and mothers, our sons and daughters across a large portion of this world; men and women who gave up their lives in order that others can be free from despotic rulers and societies.

    Plus, whenever I hear anyone claim that Americans hate Muslims, it forces me to conclude that they surely must be the most idiotic people on earth, right behind Washington leftists. The evidence is overwhelming that the most harm ever done to any Muslim community originated with Muslim extremists. Likewise, Øbama insults me personally by seeking to apologize to world leaders for our so-called arrogance. Americans have a heavily vested interest in freedom and democracy for others. How dare he apologize for that? How dare he insult the wives, children, and parents of Americans who lost a son or daughter in our attempt to free the oppressed? How dare he suggest that we are arrogant when we have spent billions of dollars rebuilding Europe and saving Africans from HIV infections and starvation? Who else in the world provided direct assistance to the victims of tsunamis in Indonesia, even as we too often ignore our own homeless and impoverished?

    If Americans are arrogant, it is because we disdain other nations who pursue the more-traveled path of lethargy and appeasement; it is because we have paid a high price to set other people free. Neither Øbama, nor the communists in congress realize that real Americans already know about trans-nationalism; we knew about saving others long before Øbama was even born, but it had nothing to do with kissing derrieres in the EU framework, which is something Americans like me categorically refuse to do.

  3. I'm thinking the tea parties are definitely a step in the right direction, but we need to do more. But what?

    Our government has firmly crossed the line from protecting our rights to being the greatest threat to them. Our founding fathers would have cried Tyranny!

  4. 75% of Americans are against amnesty for illegal aliens, yet Obama and the Republican leadership are trying to get it in law.78% of Americans are against bailouts for bankers and corporations that are failures, but we have bailout after bailout costing our children their future. 80% of Americans were opposed to NAFTA, but Clinton and the Republicans passed it because they "knew what was best for America". The colonists had a revolution because of "taxation without representation". Our Founding Fathers would look at us with contempt for allowing the freedom they bled for to be stolen by the corrupt "leaders" we have now. Are we so gutless that we will allow this country to fall to the very authoritarian philosophy that so many of our sons have died fighting against?

  5. Bill said...
    "75% of Americans are against amnesty for illegal aliens,..."

    It depends how you word the question. "Amnesty" is a loaded word that skews results. But if that's the word to use, Reagan gave them amnesty. How'd that work out? Not bad.

    80% of Americans were opposed to NAFTA, but Clinton and the Republicans passed it because they "knew what was best for America".

    Actually, polls were split at the time. Now they are supportive. Apparently leadership knew what was best for America.


    "Canadian opinion, reported in a June 2003 Ipsos Reid survey, found that a clear majority (70%) of Canadians supported NAFTA,..."

    "A poll on NAFTA conducted among the public in all three countries by Ipsos Reid in 2002 explored preferences... The public in all three countries favored increasing trade or keeping it the same (75% in Canada, 73% in the United States and 58 percent in Mexico wanted to increase trade or keep it the same).

    Thus a variety of polls conducted after 7-10 years of experience with NAFTA indicate that public opinion in all three countries generally supports the pact and increasing trade in general."

    "The colonists had a revolution because of "taxation without representation".

    Now you have taxation and representation too! The colonists would be pleased. And be happy, Obama just lowered your taxes. Be sure and pay them. That's coming up isn't it?

    "I also dropped the bottom rate from fifteen percent to ten percent, because, by far, the vast majority of the help goes to the people at the bottom end of the economic ladder."

    --G.W. Bush, lying during the first Gore debate. The bottom 60 percent got 14.7 percent.