It’s your forum, too.
In response to my comments of two weeks ago, in which I said that Thomas Jefferson would be appalled at the size and the scope of today’s federal government, David P commented as follows:
“The banking industry got less government via deregulation. It was allowed to make deposit banks into investment banks which then took high-return/loss risks….and lost vast sums of money. Sometimes less is more….more corruption, more middle class below the poverty line, more money for the top executives….and more failure for the US as a whole.
By the way, even O’Reilly and Beck have said that M[ichael] Savage is a far right wing nutter; your continued support of him clearly shows that you DO push your agenda through the media outlet you control, regardless of your attempt to deny it. Please take that fool off of the air. Remember: this is a member of your listening public speaking to you, not the government.”
Well, David, thank you for being a member of the listening public and let’s take your comments in reverse order. First, I’m not pushing anything. I’m stating what I believe and inviting you to respond according to what you believe. Thank you for doing so.
I’m also not “supporting” Michael Savage. I’m putting programming on the air that I hope will draw an audience for which advertisers will pay me to have access.
And I never said there should be no regulation. I never went in the tank for the banking industry. The little appreciated fact is that a huge percentage of the top guys at the marquee investment banks in New York are big time liberals.
Many of our largest banks screwed up and they should suffer. But if that is true, and it is, it is also true that they were coerced by the federal government under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 to make home loans to sub-prime borrowers. Barney Frank and his acolytes called this “affordable housing.” It was no such thing. It was irresponsible lending and it was scaled up at the behest of an activist Congress and an activist administration during the Clinton years. The banks’ hands are not clean with respect to the mortgage meltdown. But the federal government played the decisive role in the mortgage disaster.
My remarks regarding Thomas Jefferson’s likely take on the federal government of today are more global in nature anyway. The United States government is too large and tries to do too much. Most of what it does it does not do well. Social Security is bankrupt. Medicare is bankrupt. Amtrak is a financial disgrace. Even the post office is going broke.
The economy is sputtering because those who take the risks and invest the capital to create the jobs are hiding their money under their mattresses because they lack confidence in the future. So long as the president and the Congress keep proposing top-down fixes funded by profligate borrowing, such will continue to be the case.
That’s why Scott Brown won in Massachusetts, David, which is what caused me to opine that when Thomas Jefferson said that an informed American public could be counted on to ‘set things to rights,’ he was seeing 220 years into the future.
But I thank you for listening, David. Post your comments anytime. That’s why we call this feature, “You Tell Me.”
Dear David,
Your personal agenda and perspective of the proper function of government is revealed by your expressed belief that our banking difficulties could be solved or even prevented by more “regulation”.
I suggest you read some of the brilliant economic books by Thomas Sowell. He documents the true cause of both the housing and banking difficulties is not lack of government regulation but rather too much federal interference with the free market.
I also refer you to Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution, the Fedralist Papers and “The Principles of ’98” by Thomas Woods. To quote the Gipper, “The government is the problem”.
The only way out of this mess is to get the federal monster restrained again by the chains of the Constitution.
Paul,
Sometimes I’m amazed at the lack of response you get on You Tell Me. I find your presentation thought provoking and generally right on the money. So, take this as a commendation from a frequent listener.
While I’m airing my thoughts, I agree that David does do a nice Tyler Ford commercial and I appreciate his style, even though I don’t drive Fords.
Even though I’m not a paying advertiser, I also agree with David P about Michael Savage being a bit strange and unusual, maybe even to the point of thinking he’s a half bubble off plumb.
One last thought, the economy was doing pretty good, until the Democrats took over Congress after the 2006 elections.
I did some work with local banks over the last ten years to increase their involvement with local nonprofits. These donations helped local banks show community involvement and to take off some of the heat the CRA enforcement goons were putting on them to make high risk loans. A lot of bankers told me they were under real pressure from the federal government and their own bosses to crank out loans to “targeted” groups. Many wisely resisted that temptation and missed out on the whole banking collapse deal as a result.
Good for them. Maybe some other banks will learn from this experience and use some of that famous American ingenuity to avoid being trapped in the next progressive boondoggle that comes down the pike.
By the way, I don’t like Savage either. If I want to listen to someone whine, I’ll go hang out with my family. But, if Savage’s program draws enough revenue to help keep KTBB on the air, I can always listen to something else for a couple of hours – sports or something on KDOK or WBAP. I could always start my own Internet radio show and entertain myself that way. Lot’s of possibilities….
Tom King – Flint, TX