This was a misleading, poorly written article. "THE FACTS" (I love
how that was all in caps - as if that made the "facts" stated somehow
more impenetrable to scrutiny) seem to actually be skewed statistics with a fair
amount of spin. I'm sure there will be some readers that will fact check the
facts in the article and post in the comments. The shame is that
only a fraction of the people that read the article will read the corrections
presented in the comments. Alas, the media still has such sway on what we
think, and therefore how we vote...
Romney, come on, stop pandering to the far far right.If anyone
educated themselves on the auto industry you would realize that of GM and
Chrysler went under, parts suppliers that support ALL BRANDS would have
suffered. Parts such as airbags supplied by Auoliv etc. would not have survived
and you wouldn't have been able to buy a new car from any manufacturer.Also, the manufacturing base of this country is eroding and Romney supports
sending those jobs overseas? How am I not surprised. Another reason I can't be
a registered Republican and went independent, they support companies that are
sending US manufacturing jobs overseas and are always looking for ways to do it.
This author is I'll informed. EPA means eliminate production agriculture. The
regulation is ridiculous and growing. There are issues the EPA is court ordered
to do and still moves at a snails pace. Regulation costs business big in this
country and forces the creation of non revenue producing jobs. The kind of jobs
Washington loves. Perhaps this author should get out from behind his
desk and see the real world of the EPA.
Somebody should fact check the fact checker.Chrysler and GM bond
holders were legally in the first position to be paid. Obama over rode their
legal rights and instead gave away the store to the UAW.Robbing
Peter to pay his buddies is what Obama does best.As for Obama Care.
Heck yes that is a drag. I recently launched a new business and I refuse to
hire any direct employees because of Obama Care. Regulations create a huge
barrier to entry for manufacturing businesses. The regulatory burden costs
American's $1.75 Trillion each year. Many of these regulations do little but
increase costs and make life difficult for employers. Get rid of
the abuse and watch the economy take off.
As I sit in a meeting with an EPA employee tomorrow I can promise you he cannot
even provide the information I will need to comply with their new regs. They
are anybodies guess, but the new regs will move forward on the backs resource
related industries. Has this author ever produced anything but his
How can this article pretend to be journalism? This is nothing but a
distorted, biased attack on anyone opposing the would be dictator Obama.
Please stop printing this article as "news." If GM had
been allowed to go under, the bond holders (who were guaranteed first priority)
would not have been wiped out, the union would not have been protected and a
successor company(ies) would have arisen placing the auto industry in a stronger
position without government and union ownership.Big government, big
unions and big businesses are wrong. Make them all much smaller.
Is all of this misinformation because of ignorance or by deliberate design to
achieve a goal? Either way it is reprehensible. But the important question is:
do we really want the truth?
How is it that the government owns a stake in either of these companies? Is
this free market capitalism or is it communism? Why the government owns any
part of these companies is beyond insane. Too big to fail...we'll see.
Why doesn't someone actually investigate where all the "bailout" money
actually went within GM and Chysler? Answer: because Obama and the Democrats are
hiding where it actually went; the UAW! Honestly folks, where do you think the
money actually went? And some of you get down on Romney for asking honest
questions that every American should insist on knowing! Dirty money anyone?
Pinch me I must be dreaming, DNews published something even mildly critical of
their favorite son!
So I get it now. Republicans can't make generalized statements, it's considered
wrong. But the Dems can spout off generalizatoins all the time and get a free
pass (i.we the tea party is racist,conservatives hate illegal immigrants, they
want to destroy social security, etc).Nice double standard, I
haven't even talked about the treatement liberals are giving Cain vs. Clinton.
OK...this "article" clearly belongs in the Opinion section, even
though it was written by an AP reporter as a straight news story. The entire
article is a debate against GOP political positions, not an actual "fact
check". A true Fact Check should stick to clearly verifiable black/white
facts that are not the subject of partisan debate, i.e. everyone can agree on
what's true.Example: Everyone would agree that saying the US
population is 200 million, when it's verifiably 300 million, is a fact check.
But saying that regulation isn't really a problem for US businesses is another
story entirely - that's a political argument subject to complicated debate. You
may think you're right, you may even BE right, but it's no "fact
Christopher: Unfortunately, I don't believe a word you said. Show me a writer,
or politician, that will just tell the truth about why America is suffering
right now and why Government isn't the answer to relieving that suffering and
I'll know you are beginning to see the truth! Otherwise, the partisan bickering
Thank you for printing this article. During election years politicians get fast
and loose with the facts. This year is seems to be worse than others.
Newspapers provide a great service when they hold politicians to account for
their distortions and misrepresentations. I find your article fair and
unbiased. The facts that you quote are not your own, but from reputable
economists not tied to politicians.
That is a "great" article! It doesn't meet the thinking and ignorance
of the ruling majority in this state, but it tells these dreamers that maybe
just maybe they should fact check more than they do instead of spouting and
Nice "The Rock", you start a business but you're unwilling to provide
health care for your employees..the single most important source of health
insurance for americans. Now if you pay your employees an extra couple of bucks
an hour so they can buy their own insurance good for you. I doubt that's the
case though given you said you chose to hire temps so you don't have to provide
any health benefits. You are the very reason the health care act was passed and
why the government has regulations. Regulations are intended to blunt,
mitigate, or change the undesireable effects of free markets. You are free to
start a business, however the fact is access to health care is primarily
obtained through employment, so if a society deems access to health care for
everyone desirable then when employers don't provide it, society/government may
step in and alter that outcome for the good of society. Yes you may be creating
jobs but you are also thwarting a desired goal of society in the process. Not a perfect outcome here, but large societal goals are being met here.
Solution..take health insurance away from employment..single payer.
Regulation is the problem?How much regulation was in place during
the mortgage backed security debacle. NONE! Government uncharacteristically
turned a blind eye, allowing Wall Street to create their own Casino Royale,
fleecing millions out of trillions.I have no faith in any candidate
that lacks the courage to call a spade a spade.
It seems the only candidate in the debates whose true interest is in serving his
country the USA is Ron Paul. The others it seems their primary interest is their
self interest: they want the glory of president for themselves and they are
willing to say or do what ever it takes to get to the top.
Vince: Can you list the "facts" stated in this article?Like a previous poster, I see a lot of opinion, a lot of spin, a lot of
interpretive analysis, but I see almost nothing that I could call a
"fact." Perhaps you view them as "facts" because they happen
to be more in line with your political viewpoints but doesn't that make you
guilty of the same charge you levied against "the ruling majority in this
A friend and I decided not to buy a business two years ago precisely because
Obamacare was being discussed. The business is a national franchise that
provides a service at a moderate cost. At the time Obamacare had not passed and
most experts thought that it would not pass, but the problem for us was that it
was projected to cost the company approximately the same as it was making in
profits. We did not want to put our assets at risk by buying a company that
might end up breaking even. We backed out, the business shut down, and all the
employees went on unemployment. Multiply this scenario a few thousand times,
and you'll see that Obamacare indeed has had an extremely negative impact on the
job market. I also have seen how regulations hurt business. I've
given up two businesses primarily because of onerous governmental regulations.
Huge businesses can afford to hire full-time employees to deal with thousands of
pages of regulations and mountains of paperwork. A small company can't do it.
Goodbye small business. Hello Walmart and Bank of America.
As a lifetime Republican and conservative, I will be the first to advocate for
"limited Government." But limited does not mean impotent nor small.The limits placed on the Federal Government by the Constitution, and the
balance of power among the branches of government, were not designed to ensure
any particular size or potency of government.Rather, they are
designed to focus the power of government on key aspects of a "more perfect
union" that only a powerful and effective government "of the people,
by the people, and for the people" can ensure.The government
does have the authority and power to regulate interstate commerce, as well as to
protect the welfare of US citizens from the harm that large, impersonal
corporations may inflct on "the little guy".There was
nothing about the "bailout" that violated the Constitution, and the
stimulus actions Obama finally approved were consistent with what Bush was
putting in place anyway.As conservatives, we Republicans must be
committed to "conserving" the Defense, General Welfare, and Blessings
of Liberty that underpin our way of life. That includes regulations to protect
common citizens from greedy WallStreet leveraged speculation, Casino hedge fund
manipulation, or labor exploitation.
pragmatist,Is The Rock a health care worker? If not, why would ANYONE
want him providing them health care (other than in an emergency/first aid
situation)?But wait, the Rock doesn't even HAVE any employees, so
how can he be denying them health insurance (which is probably what you
meant)?And why doesn't the Rock have any employees? Obamacare.He cites a clear example of how Obamacare stiffles employment and you
ignore that to complain about his supposed selfishness.The Rock was
correct when he told of how the bondholders were cheated in the bankruptcy
proceedings to the union's benefit. I noticed you couldn't refute that so you
Tell me if I'm wrong, but the top Wall Street firms receiving bailouts, have
repayed them with interest---the government has made money on most of them.
TARP ended up not being that much money to the taxpayers. The government has
said it will sell it's shares of stock it owns in companies on the open market.
If we all believe in free markets, then surely the government has a right to
make a profit??
The Rock:I was thinking to the exact same points when I was reading
the article. The bailout/bankruptcy did indeed hand the company to the Unions at
the expense of the bond holders that were first in line to receive payment. Many
normal American citizens likely were invested in the funds that got pushed to
the back of the line meaning that many Americans got smacked twice. Once for
taxpayer money, once for having bond rights stripped from us.JohnJacob:Advocating bankruptcy without a bailout is not letting a
company "go under". No one, especially Romney, was advocating that GM
fail and close their doors. The point of bankruptcy is to allow the company to
restructure their obligations, and come back healthy. So the up and down chain
effects to suppliers and customers would have been minimal.The worst
part is, even the reviled Uncle Ben at the Fed warned not to bail out the autos,
and to let them enter bankruptcy. Obama ignored this, and ended up giving them
large funding and then watching the company go bankrupt anyway.
GOP greed, power and corruption has no common sense. WOW, DNews published
something mildly critical of their favorite son Romney!?. Should we cut Defense
spending? Get rid of the oil subsidies?. U.S. and global economies are heading
for "The Great Stagnation." The ultra-wealthy have continued to
prosper, as the American middle class is vanishing before our eyes. The last
10 years have brought about an unprecedented financial disaster for the average
family on Main Street. Since the year 2000, the U.S. stock market has lost more
than 20%. Thats more than a decade with nothing to show but losses for millions
of investors. The housing crash has erased tens of trillions more in household
net worth. Not even our money in the bank has been safe, as the U.S. dollar has
lost 35% of its value and the price of everything from healthcare to food, fuel,
utilities and education is soaring. Not only have the retirement accounts and
net worth of millions been decimated but we are facing higher prices across the
board, while bringing home less each month. I think we should also tax the Koch
Brother's types, Wall Street and K-Street.
pragmatistferlife - You miss the entire point. "The Rock" said he
started up a business without any 'direct' hires, hiring instead contract
employees. I see this all over the place at small, medium and large businesses.
It is a trend born of the rising costs of healthcare, which Obamacare is just
adding to.Nothing in Obama's "health reform" did anything
to bring fdown the cost of health care. It needs to be repealed, and replaced
with reform that includes:-Tort reform, so Doctors do not have to pay $5k
per month in malpractice insurance.-Patent reform, so new drugs that
recoup their development costs in the first 2 years on the market can't gouge
the public for 17 years of patent protection.-Prescription drug purchase
availability internationally via the internet.-Allowing more health care
providers access accross all markets in the US, instead of limiting access to a
few players in each.These reforms will drive down cost. Driving
down cost will allow more employers to offer health insurance, and will enable
more employees to participate in it, lessening pressure on local, state and
federal government to pick up the tab - also good for the deficit. Get it now?
Meanwhile, Ron Paul has been Stating the Facts for years. And the establishment
(conservative?) politicians just don't get it!
Oh good, now I can either go the Huffington Post or Deseret News for a daily
dose of diatribe, both chose to carry this "all spin zone" piece from
Rugaber. For anyone who held common stock and lost it all in the government
dictated deal with GM, I'm sure they agree with Romney. Beyond that, it is
total spin to say that it was given to the retirement trust fund and not the
union. Fiat "acquired????" their shares of Chrysler first by being
given the shares directly and then by being given money by the US government to
purchase enough more shares to have a controlling interest in the company.
(But, I guess that I need to check to see if any of this is open to discussion
once Rugaber has laid down THE FACTS). Since I have a word limit I need to end,
but let me just say it is disappoointing to find this kind of lame journalism on
ReJ-TXTort reform--Obama offered to consider Tort reform in his STOU
speech. Republicans refuse to come to the bargaining table. Malpractice
insurance still rises in states with tort reform.International
Internet prescription purchasing? Who is going to guarantee the safety and
efficacy of those drugs?Allowing people to purchase health insurance
across state lines? A nightmare for physicians, adding to the already overly
complex billing system. And what would a CA resident's recourse be if a health
insurance co. in Wyoming unfairly denied a claim?The CBO estimated
the Public Option would save $115 billion over 10 yrs.
Those far right folks are really bad. They want free enterprise, lower taxes,
less regulation, fewer govt workers, less spending. Yep. My neighbor a banker in
a credit union says Frank-Dodd will hurt small business much worse than large
as they do not have the staff to comply with the regulations. HE expects many
small banks to have to quit.
Anything the reality challenged Bachman says isnt all that surprising. Mitt
Romney on the other hand knows better. He is pandering to the truly stupid for
votes. The problem is we all suffer when politicians are willing to play the
game of "Best Liar" to wooo those voters who will hear only what they
want to hear.
The guy in the picture looks like a zombie.
It was interesting to hear what the circus, the GOP, had to say. I can not
believe that anyone is calling for less regulations on banks. They are allowed
to create money out of thin air and yet republicans(except ron paul) want to
give them more power to ruin our economy.
Applicable to the comments of the candidates and to the stream of comments on
this board I would like to remember a couple of timeless and immortal words from
Thomas Jefferson;1) "The Democracy will cease to exist when you take
away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would
not."2) "My reading of history convinces me that most bad
government[s] results from too much government." and, (though I'm not
positive which of our illustrative fore-fathers said this)3)
"Government is destined to fail whrn it imposes over taxation, over
regulation and the rewarding of poor performance." Based on
those comments, which are truly prophetic, we (our government)appears to be on
the cusp of failure.
@I M LDS 2"...As a lifetime Republican and conservative, I will
be the first to advocate for "limited Government." But limited does
not mean impotent nor small...".There is not a Republican
candidate running for the Presidency who will, if elected, see a 2nd term unless
they slash and burn government, regulation and entitlements.
To "christoph | 8:49 a.m." TARP, which bailed out the banks, so far
has ended up losing a total of $25 billion. Yes some companies paid it back
with interest, but others did not.If you look at the auto-bailouts,
those have also lost billions of dollars too.
Jonathan Eddy - The reason why we had the housing melt-down was because the
Liberals wanted to get those who can't afford a house into one. So banks were
punished for not giving loans to those who can't afford it and Fanny May and
FM/FDIC guaranteed these loans. So regulation wasn't a problem but the adverse
effect of government involvement.This writer is pretty clueless
about what he put into the article. Nothing like denying the obvious!!!
This article is misleading: a business isn't going to cite regulations as the
reason for bankruptcy, but regulations do raise costs substantially which drive
some businesses out of solvency. Consider Obama's drilling moratorium alone -
the gas prices have stayed HIGH and the pinch is felt by all, businesses and
families alike. Consider Obamacare: in the healthcare industry the cost of
implementing Obamacare in the beginning stages alone (according to its rules and
regulations) are astronomical. It is a scary time to work in medicine. You would
never have thought doctors and medical professionals could have difficulty
finding work before. Which means patients will have a harder time finding and
receiving quality care. In manufacturing, the costs of following EPA standards
are driving whole power plants out of business, which will only further raise
energy costs. The fact checker should look further into the reasons
businesses go bankrupt to be honest. I'm tired of the bulk of media directing
readers to think left if they think at all. Anyway, if you're not sure of any
facts in any article (left or right), do some thoughtful research and draw your
If the FACTS were really true, how is Romney wrong by saying that President
Barack Obama "gave GM to UAW, he gave Chrysler to Fiat", when the fact
IS that the UAW for whatever reason did get a good chunk of GM and Fiat did
ended up with over 50% of Chrysler by paying the Fed?This article is
an opinion piece, not a news article and especially not a FACT checking piece of
It is not about Big Government vs Small GovernmentWhen government is
too small you have anarchy (a condition where the people abuse each other).When government is too powerful you have tyranny, where the government
abuses the people.Government must be large enough to prevent anarchy
and strictly limited in power to prevent tyranny.Freedom is
therefore the absence of abuse. (Including self abuse, sex, drugs, alcohol,
etc.)The purpose of government is to prevent abuse: Protect the
rights of the people.One stated purpose of government is to
"Establish Justice". They got off the path when they attempted to
establish fairness instead. You cannot establish fairness without being unfair
to another.Let Freedom Ring
Fact Checking the Fact CheckerHow did Chrysler pay off the rest of
the $7.6 billion they owed the Treasury Department? The Obama
administrations bailout agreement with Fiat gave the Italian car company a
Incremental Call Option that allows it to buy up to 16% of Chrysler stock at a
reduced price. But in order to exercise the option, Fiat had to first pay back
at least $3.5 billion of its loan to the Treasury Department. But Fiat was
having trouble getting private banks to lend it the money. Enter Obama Energy
Secretary Steven Chu who has signaled that he will approve a fuel-efficient
vehicle loan to Chrysler for wait for it $3.5 billion.To recap,
the Obama Energy Department is loaning a foreign car company $3.5 billion so
that it can pay the Treasury Department $7.6 billion for it's share of Chrysler
stock even though American taxpayers spent $13 billion to save it in the first
This article WASN'T journalistic.It was an opinion piece by the
"A.P." who think we're stupid!The "associated
press" used to mean non-biased journalistic facts.They seldom
ARE THAT anymore!
midclThank you for setting the record straight!
For those of you who say TARP lost money, it depends on what part of TARP you
are talking about. According to Table 2.2 of the Special Inspector
General for TARPs October 27, 2011 Quarterly Report to Congress, the CBO
estimates: The Capital Purchase Program (bank bailout) EARNED $16
billion.The Citigroup and Bank of America bailouts EARNED $7
billion.AIG COST $14 billion.The auto bailout COST $14
billion.Homeowner bailouts COST $13 billion. (BO's disappointed this
didn't cost more)The financial bailout (AIG, BofA and Citigroup, and
other banks) EARNED $9 billion.Auto and homeowner bailouts COST $27
billion.AFTER GM and Chrysler got TARP funds, then went BK, the
unions got paid AHEAD of treasury and AHEAD of the bondholders. Romney was
correct, and the OWS crowd should be protesting GM, Chrysler, and homeowners who
got bailed out (but then I suspect some of them would be protesting themselves)
Lets just drop all regulations, rules, acts, civil ordinances and laws and then
maybe everyone will be happy in the chaos that will follow. Wake up and smell
the roses, a civilized society does not work without regulations, rules, acts,
civil ordinances and laws.Nice article! It is good to see something
written that shows the double speak of politicians, be they Republican or
Democrat. Though this article is about a republican debate I will expect to
read the same about any politician regardless of party during the silly season
of the federal elections that plays a bit free with facts.
If in fact government were limited and just had done what it was intended to do
in the first place, which is to protect my unalienable rights, there would be
very little of this partisan bickering. However, because government has
branched out into areas that government was never intended to do, the partisan
bickering will continue undeterred by heaven or hell. When it returns to its
proper role, protecting me in my alienable rights, the partisanship will hardly
be a whisper, and the corrupt power brokers will not be able to continue the
charade of a government 'for the people'!
A good Primary song to remember:I believe in being honest;I
believe in being true,That honesty should start with meIn all I say,
in all I do.Ill form good habits in my youth,To keep my word, to
tell the truth,To speak up in defending rightAnd keep my name and
honor bright.I believe in being honest;I believe in being true,That honesty should start with meIn all I say, in all I do.
lari3, lost in DC, and J-TEX, I hardly missed the point I simply ignored your
bias that any job created is a good job, even if it doesn't pay a liveable wage,
and supply life sutaining benefits (health insurance etc.). I don't share your
opinion or bias, and therefore support government regulations that attempt to
create an economy where all jobs pay a wage that sustains life. To the poster
who said they didn't purchase a business because providing health insurance to
employees made the business so it only broke even..well guess what you probably
shouldn't have beeen in business if your margins were so thin you couldn't
provide employees decent benefits.
I am LDS 2 you are right,on good comments. There is a need and place for gov't
regulation. We deregulated the savings and loans in the 80s. What a fiasco.
Deregulation often backfires and makes things worse. Why is the savings and
loan debacle never discussed. It was fairly recent.
Hilarious article. Almost had me fooled. Economists say "poor sales"
is the REAL problem. Good one. Now lets analyze this a bit.Why are
there poor sales? People are losing thier jobs and homes, perhaps.Why are people losing their jobs and their homes? Mainly becasue businesses
and people cannot take out loans.Why can't businesses or people get
loans? Ta Da: Regulations!You see? Scoop away the spin and we
find that neither the article nor the candidates were wrong. But we can take
this analysis futher:Why is there so much unnecessary regulation?
Obama and the Democrats.Why are Obama and the Democrats thinking
they should stay in office? Now there's one no one can answer.
Wow, pragmatistferlife, you really do not get it. Answer this for me:I am a small business owner. I started my business with my own money that I
saved over many years from my previous jobs. Once I started my business, I
assumed all of the risk for the success or failure of that business. No one else
risked anything, just me. As my business grew, I decided to hire my first
employee. I could only afford to pay $12 per hour. No benefits. Just $12 per
hour. A person that had previously only made minimum wage applied for the job
and was hired. That person was now making more money than they had ever earned
before.What did I do wrong? Should I have not hired that person
because I was not able to offer "life sustaining benefits" such as
health insurance?Last year my business grossed $1.6 million. I still
do not offer any benefits but every employee now makes more money working for me
than they have ever made before. They are all very happy to have their jobs. Should I not be in business? Your thoughts?
I Choose Freedom, my thought is that the discussion is not about right or wrong.
It's about decisions, goals , and outcomes. First fact is that all citizens
will need health care at one time or another, to one degree or another. Second
fact is access to health care is granted through two sources, one health
insurance, and two you just walk in the door with no means of paying and society
picks up the tab. Third fact is that the majority of americans obtain health
insurance through their employment. As a society Americans have
decided to reduce the number of citizens who's only access to health insurance
is to walk through the door and rely on the mercy of others. As an employer who
doesn't offer health insurance you have increased the chances that your
employees fall into this category of citizen, thereby you have placed yourself
in direct conflict with a goal of society. You can choose to fight
against the decision of society (health care reform act) but as long as you
choose to not provide health care you're going to have this conflict..unless
America makes another choice..to unbundle health care from employment in
These "businesspeople" who have posted so far are interesting...they
are concerned for their business. Of course, who wouldn't be? But how about some
concern for possible employees? Maybe it's good you didn't end up having any. I
worked for about a year for a company whose policy was to hire for just under
full-time, to avoid paying benefits. This wasn't good for someone who wanted
badly to work hard, but with a chronic disease to control and medicate on a
regular basis. This was pre-ADA, I suppose you would like to get rid of that,
too, so people like me wouldn't want the opportunity to work in your business.
Those regulations many of you speak so derisively of often are there because
living, breathing, human beings need them to be treated fairly and
humanely---and sometimes, you're the human being who is helped, even if you're
not aware of it.
@KM | 7:25 a.m. Nov. 10, 2011 Cedar Hills, UT How is it that
the government owns a stake in either of these companies? Is this free market
capitalism or is it communism? Why the government owns any part of these
companies is beyond insane. Too big to fail...we'll see.KM- to take
another look at what some are proposing, the privatization og Social Security
could result in the USA being a major stockholder in many companies. If the
government is a big stockholder in GM and it comes time to get government
vehicles do we buy Fords, or do we buy GM because we have stock in that
companyy? Your worry about government having ownership does bring some
To "NeilT | 5:34 p.m." first of all, you should realize that the
banking industry has the most regulations to follow out of any industry in the
US.Next, even the "deregulations" in the 1980's actually
added regulations. If you look at history, the banking industry has performed
better with fewer problems when there truely was less regulation. You know,
back before the government mandated lower lending standards and before we had
government guaranteed loans.
Lost in DC ... care to reference where these 13 billion in homeowner bailouts
went? Perhaps if you actually explain that, your story might change a bit.Here is a latest quote from the program "Of the $45.6
billion in Trouble Asset Relief Program funds meant to aid homeowners, the most
recent numbers available show that only about $2 billion has actually gone out
the door."That was of August 25th of this year.Redshirt - can you point to this utopian time when Banking performed better
with less regulation? The history of this country is littered with banking
collapses. I am most interested in when this period was.
Redshirt - to your banking regulation comments again.... you know when the two
biggest periods of bank failure where in this country. Yes, one of them was
the great depression.... but what makes those look like small time numbers is
the numbers of bank failures during the ... hold your breath..... Reagan
years.The number of bank failures during Reagan went like this...1989 - 5341988 - 4701987 - 2621986 - 2041985 -
1801984 - 10Under Bush 1, those numbers dropped and continued
to drop all the way through Bush II, until you guess it, in 2006 they started to
climb again. For 2010, our current peak - 157 banks have failed.
Far too many, but far fewer than in those glory days of Reagan.The
economic damage to jobs, supporting industries and our own manufacturing base
would have been devastating had we allowed that economic base disappear. With
out government help, GM and Chrysler would not have survived against the Korean,
Japanese, and European car manufactures who are all supported with government
provided infrastructure.We are not competing against Kia, but with
Korea Inc, and China Inc. The game has changed, time to wake up.
To "UtahBlueDevil | 8:53 a.m." is it me, or do liberals have a hard
time thinking about what is said before responding.Take a look at
the number of banking regulations. It has grown every year. Using your logic,
that would mean that a bank could never fail.If we are competing
against foreign government, then we will surpass them as long as we allow
businesses to run without our government micromanaging them. Governments do not
have to be efficient, businesses do. Governments don't have to worry about debt
like a business does because a government has guaranteed customers.But, that is just a tangent to what I said earlier.The fact is
that since the 1980's we have added more regulations than we have taken away.
Even in the 1980's when there were the bank failures, banks had more regulations
added to them.