http://www.newsmax.com/politics/obama_economy/2009/05/02/210095.html

WASHINGTON -- Wall Street is not going to play as dominant a role in the economy as regulations reduce "some of the massive leveraging and the massive risk-taking that had become so common," President Barack Obama says.

The changes in the role of Wall Street and the huge profits that came from that risk-taking could mean other adjustments as well, Obama said in an interview in this week's New York Times Magazine.

"That means that more talent, more resources will be going to other sectors of the economy," he said. "I actually think that's healthy. We don't want every single college grad with mathematical aptitude to become a derivatives trader. We want some of them to go into engineering, and we want some of them to be going into computer design."

"Wall Street will remain a big, important part of our economy, just as it was in the '70s and the '80s," he said. "It just won't be half of our economy."

Obama said he expects that government efforts to fix the economy will cause long-term changes.

"What I think will change, what I think was an aberration, was a situation where corporate profits in the financial sector were such a heavy part of our overall profitability over the last decade," he said.

Obama said he's confident that people will regain trust and confidence in the financial system, but he believes it will take time.

"I think it's important to understand that some of that wealth was illusory in the first place," he said.

This gets back to my earlier post about FREEDOM and RESPONSIBILITY.

In the above post; I explained how responsibility never goes away, the responsibility can only change owners.

Wall Street is essential to the daily functioning of the United States economy. The responsibility that Wall Street fills is not going to disappear. The responsibility is there inherently, the question is whether the responsibilities currently met by Wall Street are going to be met by Wall Street, or the government. Government control of the economic sector is a very dangerous thing. Economic Freedom is tanamount to freedom in all aspects of life.

Obama also said, "I actually think that's healthy. We don't want every single college grad with mathematical aptitude to become a derivatives trader. We want some of them to go into engineering, and we want some of them to be going into computer design." Obama thinks it's a good thing that more people are involved in engineering, instead of trading. This of course does not take into account all of the people who went to college wanting a job associated with trading. Obama is trying to regulate the job market to reflect his views. Is the job of the President of The United States to decide which industries are lucrative?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124109550079373043.html

Chrysler LLC will file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection Thursday, President Barack Obama said, kicking off what the administration predicts will be a 30- to 60-day restructuring of the third-largest U.S. auto maker.

At the same time, Chrysler entered into a partnership with Italian auto maker Fiat SpA, Mr. Obama said in a noon address. Mr. Obama said the partnership would not only let Chrysler survive "but to thrive."
[Chrysler to File for Chapter 11] Reuters

The U.S. government will provide up to an additional $8 billion in aid, including up to $3.5 billion in so-called debtor-in-possession financing, to ensure Chrysler survives the historic reorganization process.

The administration had hoped to keep the car maker out of court but decided it was the only option after a deal to cut the company's debt was rejected late Wednesday by several of the company's lenders, a senior administration official said.

President Obama said that Chrysler has been "a pillar" of the industrial economy but that the company moved too slowly to adapt to a changing market.

An administration official said Thursday a "stronger" Chrysler would emerge "with a balance sheet and a set of liabilities that are sustainable."

"Our goal is to have this bankruptcy be short and completed quickly," with a stronger Chrysler emerging, the official said. "The court in New York has a vast amount of experience in this area and we felt that that would be the most effective."

In exchange for the aid, the U.S. government will take a "small equity" stake in the new company, which will be partly owned by Fiat. According to a White House fact sheet, the U.S. Treasury will hold 8% of the reorganized company, while Fiat would hold 20% and the governments of Canada and Ontario would receive 2%.

The U.S. government would have the power to appoint board members at the new company but would not get involved in day-to-day operations, the administration official said.

This is exactly what I was talking about in my earlier post.
http://winduprubberfinger.com/blog1.php/2009/02/16/obama-creating-lstrikegauto-industryl-st
As I predicted the measures by Chrysler did not live up to the expectations of the administration's auto taskforce. The administration's answer; Chrysler must file for bankrupcy, and the government needs to control who sits on the board of directors for Chrysler. Now there is a government apointed board of directors for a private company? This constitutes direct government intervention in the private sector.

The new government loans include between $3 billion to $3.5 billion in so-called debtor-in-possession financing and an additional $4.5 billion once the company emerges from court, administration officials said Thursday morning.

Earlier Thursday an administration official said the restructuring of Chrysler will go forward even though a handful of hedge funds have refused to accept the Treasury Department's offer to cut the auto maker's debt.

The administration's auto task force tried to get all 46 of Chrysler's secured lenders to agree to a debt-reduction deal until talks broke down late Wednesday.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=al.LvMtoEItY&refer=worldwide

“I don’t stand with those who held out when everyone else is making sacrifices,” Obama said today in Washington where he announced that Chrysler would proceed with a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing to reorganize into a more viable carmaker in a partnership with Italy’s Fiat SpA.

Obama said that while many of the stakeholders worked constructively, others did not. “In particular, a group of investment firms and hedge funds decided to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout,” he said.

“They were hoping that everybody else would make sacrifices and they would have to make none,” Obama said. “Some demanded twice the return that other lenders were getting.”

There is more when it comes to the deals brokered with Chrysler. You will have a hard time finding the information in the U.S. press corps.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8028427.stm

The carmaker hopes to sell its core assets, including the Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge brands, into a new company that would be owned by the US government, Fiat, and the company's workers.

The group of 20 lenders have said in a joint statement they were being criticised for trying to protect the interests of their investors, including unions, teachers' credit unions, college endowments, and pension and retirement plans.

Tom Lauria, a bankruptcy attorney representing a group of secured lenders, has said Chrysler's proposed plan "inverts" the usual priority scheme, whereby senior secured creditors are paid in full first, followed by junior lenders, administrative claims, unsecured lenders and equity holders.

Creditors object to the way the restructuring benefits the United Auto Workers union, which is an unsecured creditor, for the $10.6bn Chrysler owes to its retiree healthcare fund.

The lenders said in a statement on Thursday that they had been "systematically precluded" from negotiations with the government.

They said they had not been allocated funds from the Tarp programme, but that Chrysler's four main banks - JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Citigroup - had received about $90bn in government bail-out cash.

The four banks, holding 70% of Chrysler's debt, have agreed to a deal that would give them $2bn.

The Treasury Department offered to reduce Chrysler's debt. Chrysler's debt is owed to its lenders. Why would the lenders agree to take less money from Chrysler? After all Chrysler borrowed the money; lenders lend as an investment. It is assumed that when something is borrowed, it will one day be returned, or returned with interest.

This gets to a deeper question. Chrysler's debt needs to be reduced so the Treasury won't have to pick up such a large tab. Why is the Treasury Department involved with Chrysler in the first place? Why is the federal government involved in the operation of a private company? I thought that in the United States the government was not involved in the direct control of private industry? I thought that direct government intervention in private industry was reserved for socialist centrally planned countries?

Again this administration's lack of specificity is a tool. The administration never defines what it means by "viable". With no clearly specified goal, the government can never be held accountable. There is no clear set of goals by which to measure progress, or failure.

The United States Government is going to make sure that the United Auto Workers get paid before the actual shareholders do. The four banks which hold the largest stake in Chrysler all received bailout money. These banks are quick to reduce the amount of money they wish to collect from Chrysler. These banks are happy to reduce debt, and loose money at the request of the Obama administration.

In the real world there are more economic varialbles than any government can effectively control. Chrysler's failing is a perfect example. The Obama administration said that they were going to "fix" the auto makers; make sure that they are viable. Bankruptcy is not indicative of a viable company. The government failed misserably to maintain Chrysler's viablility. Obama touts this is a good thing.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/19/axelrod-tea-party-anger-misdirected/

"The thing that bewilders me is this president just cut taxes for 95 percent of the American people. So I think the tea bags should be directed elsewhere because he certainly understands the burden that people face," David Axelrod said Sunday.

Axelrod was asked on CBS' "Face the Nation" for his opinion on what the show's host described as "this spreading and very public disaffection with not only the government, but especially the Obama administration."

Axelrod replied: "I think any time that you have severe economic conditions, there is always an element of disaffection that can mutate into something that's unhealthy."

"Unhealthy?" the moderator repeated.

"This is a country where we value our liberties and our ability to express ourselves. And so far these are expressions," Axelrod answered.

Well there you have it folks, if you disagree with government spending you are extreme. Not in the Discovery Channel sense, but in the militant sense.

It is obvious that at this point anyone who opposes the "handling" of this "economic crisis" is going to be dismissed. Notice that there is no debate on the issue, only dismissal of the opposition. I wonder what axelrod thinks of the people who were against the previous administration? Were those people just expressing themselves as well?

The interesting thing is that Obama was not the focus of the Tea Parties. Anyone with even the slightest bit of historical preference knows what the Tea Parties were about. Funny how the Obama administration is so touchy when it comes to the issue of taxation. The real worry, on the behalf of the administration, is that there will be much larger gatherings when the Bush tax cuts expire. Couple that with people waking up to the fact that there are no actual tax cuts taking place.

http://winduprubberfinger.com/blog1.php/2009/02/27/obama-s-attempt-to-redefine-the-term-tax

Pay close attention when the Government of the United States is more worried about the actions of its citizens than its actual enemies.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

It is known fact that when a spouse dies, the debt is transferred to the living spouse. It is a little known fact that when an individual's last parent dies, he or she has no obligation to pay the debt of the deceased parent. This is not the case when it comes to government.

Today the United States Government is spending money / wealth that has not yet been created. This new debt exists as a societal debt collected in the form of taxes. This is not the normal debt most people are used to. The government is asking it's citizens to pay for "the sins of the father", so to speak.

This creates quite a problem. Who can guarantee how much wealth will be created? How are the creditors going to collect this debt? What are the economic ramifications of this debt?

It seems that very few of our elected officials have much of a grasp as to what it means to assume such debt. By all estimates we will have children who are born in debt. This has happened for a number of years now, but not to such a massive extent. We have children who are obligated to pay debt; which they did not incur.

There are now limits placed on children that did not exist for prior generations. In America is was a largely held belief; to work hard so your children will be "better off" than you were. This current generation is making sure that the following generations are limited through massive debt. This debt will not benefit The United States, or it's people.

The reasons given for spending such large amounts of money do not coincide with the outcome. The government is asking us to believe that by spending money now, we can repair the current "broken" system. There is no specificity offered as to what the problem is with the current system. There is no concise explanation of how spending will lead to future prosperity. There is no time line given in which the American people can gauge progress. This lack of specificity is used to allow the government to make arbitrary decisions in an unquestionable manor. When no reason is given for action, there can be no disagreement. This limiting of debate is no coincidence. Freedoms are almost always taken from individuals on an arbitrary basis. Many countries have followed this path, and the outcomes were less than desirable.

The American people need to heed the warnings of history.

Check out my last post on Sean Hannity's forum.
http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1417411

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Freedom, as defined by Merriam - Webster's Dictionary.

1: the quality or state of being free: as a: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b: liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another
2 a: a political right

Responsibility, as defined by Merriam - Webster's Dictionary.

1: the quality or state of being responsible: as a: moral, legal, or mental accountability
2: something for which one is responsible

I find it interesting how people often forget about what it means to be responsible. Responsibility comes in many forms, whether or not you consider those actions as responsibility is what makes the difference.

For example, you are responsible for making sure that you eat, shower, brush your teeth, pay your bills, go to work every day. These things are responsibilities that most people take no thought of.

People often have the diluted notion that government is responsible for the basic aspects of their life, or at least basic provisions. Many people want the government to provide them with health care, food, water, a car, a house... There comes a point where one has to draw the line.

Imagine that you are an infant again. It was pretty nice having everything done for you wasn't it? When you were an infant you didn't have any responsibilities. This is looked upon later in life and regarded as a happy care free time. As a child your life still has direction – direction chosen by others. What you had for dinner was not your choice; it was that of someone else. As a child this doesn't matter to you because you have little perspective on what you like.

As a small child you are not at the age where responsibilities are an issue. As a child you don't question how it is that your parents provide for you. This knowledge comes later.

By the time you are a teenager you have preferences, you know what you want to eat, but sometimes still can't. This is bound to make you frustrated. You have people telling you what to do, and now you know what you want to do. You have changed. Your parents no longer tell you to brush your teeth, because you do this on your own, you understand that your teeth are part of your body, and you must keep them clean. You don't have someone feeding you anymore. You feed yourself, clean yourself, these things are now responsibilities.

Being a child was nice while it lasted, but people often forget how it is that they arrived at adulthood. They made it because either there parents or someone else took the responsibility for them. That is the key; the responsibilities never go away. Responsibilities can only be shifted from one person to another person, or entity.

When the government becomes responsible for more of our lives we loose something which we gained a long time ago, choice. The freedom to chose as we wish how to meet those basic needs; those basic aspects of our lives. This is a loss of freedom.

Choice is limited when we have provided options. Remember Freedom? “The absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action”. “The absence of necessity”, meaning you no longer require coercion or constraint in choice, as you did when you were a child. People forget what they have gained. As the government “provides” for us, we inherently have limited choice. Often people are willing to sacrifice choice for convenience. The economy can't function without choice.

When you were a kid you didn't think much about how your parents were able to provide for you. Now there are able bodied adults who wish to have someone else provide for them. The problem is that there are a limited number of people who produce; or whose efforts allow the government to provide for others. As more and more people are “taken care of” by government there are fewer and fewer producers. This cycle is not sustainable.

People wanting the government to provide, and inherently make choices for them, are being reduced to a childhood mentality. In order to be content with what is provided for you, you must have limited perspective. And like a child you must also not understand how it is that the government has the means to provide for you. Remember you didn't appreciate your parents work until you were old enough to recognize it as a responsibility.

This child-like mentality is dangerous, because as I said earlier it is not sustainable. How is any economy structured in this way going to function without some sort of centralized control? Is centralized control (central planning) to replace choice?

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it, I'm looking for conversation... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"