We're sorry, but the page you were seeking does not exist. It may have been moved or expired. Perhaps our search engine can help.
Tea party people really need to take a good long look in the mirror and ask themselves, are they fighting against government takeover, or are they supporting continued control by industry?
I personally believe in government having some regulatory powers over industry.
If it wasn't for government intervention in the financial sector, impacts of collapse within the banking industry would have been more pronounced then currently after injection of the stimulus. If it wasn't for injection of stimulus into auto industry, there likely would have been hundreds of thousands of more people put out of work, not to mention the effects on all of the businesses relying on auto makers. To date, 181 billion of the stimulus loans have been repaid. It was not just a give-away program.
In addition to the stimulus issue, I would like to mention the Tea Party's efforts in railing against government takeover of banking regulation relative to derivatives, the very thing leading to the initial collapse of the biggest banks. Now, why in the world would Tea Party people want to defend the banking industry by opposing increased regulation designed to prevent future collapses?
They are not fighting against government takeover, but are actually supporting the banking industry in unbridled control, possibly leading to future collapses of banks.
By not regulating the problem relative to derivatives, the Federal Reserve's hands are tied in the use of manipulation of interest rates to regulate inflation for fear of the collapse of many more banks. I have to ask myself, could the prospect of sidestepping regulation of the banking industry result in inflation running out of control once the economic recovery gets into full swing?
Support your president in his financial reform endeavors. We don't need deepening of the recession due to the banking industry running amuck.
Mark L. Kline