That a certain restrained amount of government intervention is required is apparent. It is the scope and form of that intervention that is the point of argument. A revisiting of FDR’s New Deal will be no more beneficial to the country than it was the last time, which is none in the long run.

Better that we bear the burden of economic troubles than have our descendants live in a bankrupt nation.

TRO,

True, failed businesses and business models should be allowed to perish. Subsidizing them only rewards bad behavior and replaces the market with the government.

in2thefray,

Very, very true – but not how the media chose to represent it to the public at large. Therefor we have some of the situation we in America are now dealing with.

I continue to amaze you? In a good way or a bad way? Or do I and my blog engender in you the sort of amazement that goes along with seeing a strange creature that you can’t identify?

culturepress,

Thanks! I’m glad you liked it.

Absolutely what is needed is government intervention – and tax cuts should be a part of that package; more urgently, funds are required to maintain bank liquidity and stimulate lending.

Government does few things well. Fighting wars is one and even that gets screwed up from time to time. But meddling in the economy? That is one thing that the government has no place at all past making sure the playing field is level. The way out of this is simple – lower taxes – which generates investment in business and then in jobs while at the same time increasing revenues to pay off the debt.

The New Deal actually lengthened the depression. Trying the same thing here will only hurt our economy and drive us further towards socialism

Obama Inaugural did drive home one point for me though. As I listened and read along with his speech I realized that it was essentially the same one that Edwards, Dean, or Kerry would have delivered – insofar as content is concerned.

J,

Actually my interpretation was simply a removal of the “nuances” in this passage:

Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

I tried to take it passage-by-passage and topic-by-topic in my in interpretation. And of course I was sure that 52% of Americans would disagree with my assessment.

I think that they only we will successfully bounce back from this recession is for the government to remain uninvolved as much as possible and let the markets settle back to a sane level on their own. Government intervention should be limited to ameliorating the direct short-term impact on the average citizen.

That is the technique that worked for JFK, the technique that worked for Reagan, and the technique that got us right back on our feet after the Dot.Bomb and 9/11. It will work again. The government bankrupting our country with an Trillion Dollar bailout won’t work – not for our children and their children and all the following generations who will have to pay for it.

What he said was:

this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control

i.e. an unfettered free market failed to temper the excesses of the banks – specifically, reckless lending policies; and the selling of ever more risky credit derivatives.

The only way we are going to come out of the current crisis successfully, is for government to get involved. Call that socialism if you insist (but note that BO clearly commits to a market economy), but a laissez faire approach would be a disaster at this time.

To work through this mess, governments will have to work in a co-ordinated fashion. I’m not sure where you come to the conclusion that ‘Global Government under the rule of the UN’ is considered, less still on the agenda.