Bailouts could top $23 trillion

Holy Toledo! More than the entire cost of all wars the U.S. has ever fought. More than the New Deal. More than the cost of sending a man to the moon. Almost twice the yearly gross domestic product of the entire United States of America.

That’s the possible cost of the 50 bailout programs to which the U.S. is now committed — $23.7 trillion — according to Neil Barofsky, special inspector general for the Trouble Asset Relief Program (TARP). The ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Darrell Issa of California, points out that spending a billion dollars a day back to the birth of Christ would have added up to only $1 trillion. Barofsky’s report is expected to be delivered today to the House oversight panel.

If Congress ever needed a bucket of cold water on its over-heated passion for spending, Barofsky’s warning should provide it. Some Democrats representing districts where people earn enough to feel threatened by President Obama’s massive new spending proposals

“Again, we sit convinced “our side” had nothing to do with it, and “our side” can fix it. We are well and truly screwed.”

Republicans did have something to do with it, but not as much as the Democrats. The problem is socialism, government control of the economy. The tendency for this is stronger in the Democratic party. There are some conservative Democrats in the south, but they don't control the party. There are some “moderate” (liberal) Republicans sprinkled about (most strongly in the North East), but they don't control the party.

“Here’s what I know: For my entire lifetime only the Republicans and Democrats have been in charge, and it’s been downhill no matter which one was in the majority.”

It's not too hard to track if you focus on socialism, vs. free market. Or simpler yet, on taxes. Harding and Coolidge, both Republicans, cut taxes and kept their hands off the economy in the 1920s and the economy soared. Hoover, Republican unfortunately, signed the Smoot-Hawley tarrif and otherwise interfered with the economy (socialism). That gave us the great Depression. FDR interfered (socialism) more and the Depression continued.

More recently, Kennedy cut taxes and the economy did well. After that it was tax hikes and increased regulation and a deteriorating economy until Reagan turned things around. Clinton could not do too much harm once Newt Gingrich became Speaker of the House. Don't let the press fool you, Bush inherited a recession and turned things around. Unfortunately, there was still a lot of regulation (Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac, CRA, etc.). That the Democrats took control of the House and Senate in 2006 could not have helped. Now they control the White House and it's really not so surprising that unemployment is nearing 10%.

Socialism just does not work well. Europeans are more socialistic and double digit unemployment is just a way of life in Europe. An even starker difference can be seen with communism, where the government owns the means of production. I hope you can see the difference between a per capita income of $1,700, North Korea, and a per capita income of $26,000, South Korea.

“And if you are letting GWB off the hook because these are Federal Reserve programs, how does this then become Obama’s responsibility?”

The President has considerable influence upon the Federal Reserve. Since our current President is Obama, he is the one who currently has considerable influence on the Fed.

The Fed was created by Congress. It can be abolished or altered by Congress. If anyone has influence on current actions by the Fed, it's the Democrats. They control both the White House and the Congress.

All the things you mentioned occurred with a Democratic Congress. The Democratic Congress provided oversight and set the goalposts on what was politically feasible and what was not politically feasible. And let's not forget that Democrats have the press. Even when Democrats are in the minority, they have additional influence because of the way the news is reported.

Our problems are due to government meddling in the economy. I have no doubt as to which party has been more socialistic in the past, and is more socialistic today.

Nor does Obama’s influence start the day he assumed office. As a community organizer he sucessfully sued to force lenders to issue more sub-prime loans.

Can I blame Bush for the fact that the Government now owns 66% of GM? No. Let's stop giving Democrats cover. They are America's socialist worker party and they are the ones responsible for the mess we are in.

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.