Posted on 06/09/2009 2:02:38 PM PDT by Rufus2007
Should it be the role of the government to determine what amount of risk is appropriate in the private sector? President Barack Obama could have been interpreted as suggesting that much in comments he made about TARP repayments on June 9.
CNBC's Rick Santelli responded to those comments earlier in the day from Obama, "that those who seek reward do not take reckless risks." Santelli said on CNBC's "Power Lunch" that it's not the role of the government to make those judgments.
"It makes me a little nervous and some of the people on the floor express this - whether it was the end of the last administration or the current administration, you know to really understand what's wrong and what needs to be right - that statement's very un-American," Santelli said. "You know, why should the government think they know the magic blend of risk and reward? It's the government's role not to fall asleep at the switch, not to have products that are unregulated and to have speed limits."
...more (w/video)...
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
If he hasn't said it already, he will. Remember, you cannot parody a liberal.
Where would Terry McAuliffe, former head of the DNC, have been if he didn’t take a “gamble” with $100,000 investment that netted him $17,000,000 in return?
Where would Hillary Clinton be if she hadn’t taken a $1,000 investment in cattle futures and turned it into $100,000?
“I’m invested in a risky scheme called Social Security. HELP ME Mr. Obama!!!”
“I’m invested in a risky scheme called Social Security. HELP ME Mr. Obama!!!”
The opposite of risk, is regret.
I thought the suits over at NBC reined Santelli in?
Obamas’ budget is nothing but reckless risk in and of itself. No has the capability of funding it. Deliberate disresponsibility is the modus operandi.
UnAmerican is taking the risk and then expecting someone else to bail you out after it fails to work out - even if for “the common good”. Risk is fine, so long as you are willing to fully bear the brunt. Private gains and socialized losses is 100% unAmerican. This is a concept that can be leveraged for good or evil.
The latter is the impetus behind expanding the “safety-net”. If you are given government assistance because of your failed financial activities, it suddenly becomes the government’s business what your dealings are. Same goes for health-care - you eating that cheeseburger or smoking that cigarette or not exercising is not just an assault on your own body, but also an assault on the tax-payer and a strain on the system. Socialization of “loss” in all forms is the ultimate means of peacefully abrogating liberty.
The goal is to supplant the individual with the collective. And, once socialization of loss is sufficiently widespread, an unusual mix of Fellow Travelers will reach a consensus with respect to limiting liberty - so-called “fiscal conservatives” to reign in the budget, so-called “social conservatives” as a convenient means to reduce vice, socialists for all the usual reasons; pretty much every political sub-group will find it “beneficial” to further limit the domain of free action. The same people who harp that the GOP cannot consider axing entire departments (and such) but instead must “do what it can” are of the same mind as those who will criminalize pre-marital sex, criminalize the consumption of red meat, punish people for being overweight, and criminalize the sale of soda all in the name of “doing what they can within the political orthodoxy” to reduce deficits, or simply because government costs will provide a convenient pretext for endorsing general theocratic goals.
Again Rick Santelli hits it right on the nail.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.