Your "middle man" argument sounds suspiciously like the one made for the public option in health care reform. In other words, the problem is private lenders and insurance companies and their evil thirst for profit. Demonizing profit? Now who does that?
A government that not only regulates but participates is not quite the "invisible hand" of Adam Smith's market economy. Maybe you don't call the government forcing private companies out of an industry socialism but it sure ain't capitalism.
Nothing to do with the public option. I never even supported the public option. Show me where in the health care system we currently set the rates and provide subsidies to make private companies whole. Nowhere. I was not demonizing profit at all. The issue here isn't student loan companies being "evil" and making profit, the issue is the government wasting money on subsidizing them.
Wow, you really do lack an understanding of any of this.
Adam Smith was not against government regulation, you understand that, right? Read The Wealth of Nations. He believed in government regulation to break up concentrated economic power, etc. He also supported progressive taxation, what Republicans claim to be Socialism. But I digress. Yes, the Wall Street Journal and many others say that private companies will likely not provide student loans anymore. All that means is it is no longer profitable for them to do it without the government subsidies they currently get. Not subsidizing an industry=leaving it to the market. If the companies can not make it in the industry, because it is not profitable enough, then that is good old fashioned capitalism. How is undoing socialism for these companies not capitalism? Nothing the government has done will force them out of business by any kind of decree or forcible takeover. That is what socialism is. All this is doing is removing government subsidies.
The level of government participation and regulation is unchanged. Plus, participation is not something Adam Smith would frown on necessarily, so know what you are talking about when you invoke him. You are really twisting things here.
Student loans, Fannie & Freddie, NINE banks, TWO car companies, pay czars plus unpresidented attemps to fundamentally change the way we purchase health and energy through Health Care Reform and Cap & Trade. And that's just his first year !!!!!
Student loans, we just addressed. Fannie and Freddie were always Quasi government agencies, and were taken over by Bush in September 2008. The banks were taken over a week later by Bush, the auto companies 3 months later. The pay czars were put in place not to take over and run the banking system permanently because of some kind of ideological preference of Obama, but because said banks were BAILED OUT BY TAXPAYERS WHO DAMN WELL SHOULD HAVE A SAY IN PAY FOR THE TIME THEY ARE OWNED. The only policy change Obama has proposed going forward is not making executive pay above a certain amount tax deductible. Notice, they can still pay whatever they want. Now, if you had read the news the last month, you would see that the banks are paying us back, many have returned to profitability, the government is selling the shares for a profit, and they are back, much to the anger of the tea baggers, to paying huge compensation packages and bonuses! So let me get this straight. You and your right wing friends say that Obama is a socialist and a Wall Street tool at the same time? Also, learn how to spell unprecedented, and then think about the word! This was an unprecedented economic catastrophe that called for extraordinary measures in order to avoid a depression. This was not something Obama proposed during the campaign or just would have done as a matter of course.
Fundamentally change the way we purchase energy and health care? Not exactly. 98% of people will keep their coverage under the Health Reform plan. Cap and Trade is a program that we already have used successfully for things like acid rain, and it was supported by numerous Republicans, including McCain as recently as the 2008 Campaign! I have already been through this with you, Cap and Trade is a MARKET BASED SYSTEM that was originally pushed by moderate Democrats and Moderate Republicans as an alternative to a carbon tax or doing nothing. Its not a radical socialist approach.
Bush set up the bailouts. Obama took them over rather than let the market determine their outcome.
This makes no sense. How could you take over a bail out that has already happened? The conditions on compensation, etc were in the original 2008 bailout legislation, if this is what you are referring to. Either way, the market is determining their outcome, as they are posting profits again and buying back their shares.
Who said anything about stealth? He told us he was going to "fundamentally change the country," and he has.
What President does not promise fundamental change? How do you make the leap from this very broad platitude to socialism? Obama was very clear the entire campaign about what he thought were the many advantages of a capitalist system. Again, you thinking otherwise does not make it true. Whenever he talked about fundamental change, it was about the ways of Washington, the view that its blacks vs whites or Democrats vs Republicans, etc. A new politics, new way of thinking, etc.LISTEN CAREFULLY FOR THE FINAL WORD ON THIS: OBAMA NEVER PROPOSED TO FUNDAMENTALLY OVERHAUL OUR ECONOMIC SYSTEM, AND HE HAS NOT DONE SO AND DOES NOT WANT TO. The burden of proof is on the people like you making these claims, and you have to do alot better than an unexplained quote of "fundamental change."
They are all Keynesians however. I give the president some credit for some of these choices but the president is under pressure from the Left to dispose of several of them for not spending enough.
This is awesome! They are all Keynesians!! What else would they be? Monetarists, who have never predicted anything right? Do you realize Reagan and Bush were Keynesians too- the government borrows a bunch of money and spends a bunch of money and there is prosperity! Reagan used Keynesian tools, and so did Bush in doing a stimulus in 2008. The very foundation of the federal reserve, with such crazy socialists as Alan Greenspan is Keynesian! The government puts money into the economy when the private sector is lacking. We have had nothing but Keynesians for a very long time now. These people that Obama has hired are under pressure from the left, point well taken, but they are not going anywhere.
Yes, really! He worked with Tom Coburn to create the "google for government" with McCain on the early phases of cap and trade, got high marks from many conservative Republicans in the Illinois legislature, was endorsed by the numerous Chicago business groups and education reformers(not bleeding heart liberals at all) and was praised by Police Groups for sticking up for them when Al Sharpton types accused them of brutality. Obama got a bill passed to videotape interrogations for Chicago Cops to point to in court. He fought defense attorneys to do this.
How brainwashed to you have to be to believe Obama "was seen across the board as a moderate Democrat"?
[/QUOTE]
You are obviously not thinking straight here. The National Journal has been exposed as a joke numerous times. These votes are taken well out of context and you know they have a partisan Republican agenda when you can predict with certainty who will be the "most liberal Senator." You know how you can predict that? You look at who the Democratic nominee is for a particular year, and that's who they will pick! Kerry in 2004, Obama in 2008(oh, but Hillary came close!) those studies are just a joke! What does "liberal" even mean? Who decides what votes are relevant?
John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are right in the middle or in the case of Kerry and Obama, slightly to the left.
The far left people in the Senate, because you obviously have no idea, are the following: Bernie Sanders, Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer and Sherrod Brown.
So we have actual people who have worked with Obama, who are either moderate or conservative in their political leanings attesting to his willingness to listen and non ideological approach. Then we have a crackpot national journal study that does not even define what "liberal" is or what votes count, a study that has been shown by many sources to not have much legitimacy, and one that always picks the most prominent Democrat as the most liberal! Then we have people like you who just repeat this and only offer said flawed study as your proof, yet we are supposed to think that we are the brainwashed ones!
The Monkey Cage: Is Obama the Most Liberal Senator?
What makes a "liberal"? National Journal says: support for 9-11 Commission recommendations, health care for more kids, and stem-cell research funding | Media Matters for America
These links tell you why the study you cite is flawed.
