Exposing Progressive Corporatism: Obama Thinks He Can Hold NC, Subsidy Shows

The EI Bank also approved funds for Nigeria recently. Does that mean Obama is trying to win the Nigeria vote?

How should this process work, in your opinion? Should swing states be penalized and not allowed to have anything that benefits them? Is there any evidence that the EI is favoring swing states over non-swing-states?

Something tells me you don't have any clue to the answers to any of this.

 

Major, you misunderstand our libertarian friends.

as always, the solution is to end the war on Drugs, abolish the federal government, create agrarian free-market communes, and create a basket of currencies to replace the American dollar, as well as repealing the Civil Rights Act, and compulsory child education.

if it ain't that broke, fix it with a nuclear bomb, and start all over again!

 

Did you realize that Obama is not even a voting member for Ex-Im bank actions?

 

Outlawing all bailouts, guaranteed loans, and subsidies would do wonders for our economy.

Graft and horse trading for power and favors is what Obama learned in Chicago. Greasing palms is how things get done. Obama's only ideas for job creation are dumb payroll tax holidays and pumping taxpayer money into companies he likes (or in states where he needs votes). In this instance the timing is better because the company won't go belly up until after the election.

I'm holding off paying my student loans because I'm expecting a massive loan forgiveness initiative right before the election so Obama can gin up the apathetic youth vote.

 

Here's the funny thing about securing jobs domestically and making sure you get your money back and reduce the trade deficit in the process, it kinda makes sense.

 

See?

nevermind balanced budget amendments with small deficit caps, we gotta go all radical. let's outlaw EVERY government-affiliated fiscal security net.

America was built behind a wall of protectionism and subsidization. It will be destroyed under your prescriptions. If people had listened to the Austrians in the Great Crash, we would have no economy to speak of, so thank heavens they aren't starting now.

 

I love these Orwellian terms like "fiscal security net".

How is borrowing/printing/spending to give money away to a company contributing to my fiscal security?

 

How can you be sure you get your money back? Solyndra?

What's the opportunity cost for that half billion? What makes this company more deserving than another?

This whole notion of government playing venture capitalist with our money is immoral and ripe for corruption. It needs to be outlawed.

 

Yeah....build that pipeline to create 2000 for a few years jobs and risk rivers and the heartland...all for a Canadian company!

 

It doesn't take one attuned to economic affairs to reason out that the following contributes to your fiscal security by creating jobs, infrastructure, investment, and technology, all of which are determinants for further economic growth, and factors that contribute to societal welfare. A good example of this is how these factors make the human capital investment decision much easier through government-guaranteed loans, and increased opportunities for the educated. This in turn increases the level of education, and civil welfare outcomes such as literacy proficiency, reduced crime, social activism, participation in elections etc. are much healthier in a society wherein the bulk of people are more educated than the previous generation.

Someone more advanced in economic theory would also posit that it can help rectify balance of payment issues, competition issues and a whole host of myriad free market failings such as public goods that would not be provided under a free market framework, or technological improvements that are infeasible without government support (of course, Apollo 11 and NASA come to mind foremost, but other things like the historical support for the subsidization of telegraph lines, and then telephone lines, do also come to mind as well).

Some might even venture to say, if we were to venture into the forefront of normative economics, that post-Keynesian/Fisher debt deflation theories of credit recessions would make government neglect (through the refusal to provide reflationary measures aka bailouts, or debt forgiveness) the most harmful thing a government can do to its own economy.

You can argue that some subsidies are bad. I agree. However, to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and ban all subsidies/bailouts/government intervention as libertarians are wont to do, defies history, sense, and logic, and is as naive and harmful, if not more, as the most extreme of Marxist positions.

 

So even though you are against bailouts and guaranteed loans and subsidies you are looking forward to benefiting from a bailout and are not meeting your loan obligations because you expect one.

 

Pressure pushing down on me
Pressing down on you no man ask for
Under pressure - that burns a building down
Splits a family in two
Puts people on streets