Remember Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Those entities cost Americans---taxpayers and non-taxpayes, directly and indirectly--TRILLIONS of dollars. You will remember that both entities were "quasi-governmental" organizations, which ended up meaning that the AMERICAN TAXPAYER ended up holding the bag when both entities WENT UNDER. Yes, they went bankrupt, but they still exist as totally government entiites (instead of "quasi" entities with private stockholders--whose stock is now WORTHLESS. Yes, you can regard Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as "housing banks" set up by the Federal Government as a deceptive and dishonest way to concelal liabilities incurred in the name of the American taxpayer. Even now, as stated, Fannie Mawe and Freddie Mac are still operating, and have a total debut (a TAXPAYER DEBT, ot the extent assets are not sufficient to cover it, as they have not been) about equal to the entire "official" debt of the United States government.
Segue to Fareed Zakaria, and "Fareed Zakaria, GPS" (a wekend show on CNN). Zakaria is also associated time TIME Magazine, which means he is somewhere to the LEFT of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela--certainly to the left of Brack Obama. But, like all of CNN, he carries water fro Barack Obama. The latest SCAM from Zakaria, CNN, leftist Democrats, Obama,, and others is something being proposed called the "infrastructure bank". I could never make this stuff up. I happened to see the EDITORIAL (not really labeled as such, but it was celarly a LEFTIST, PRO-OBAMA editiorial, and presented as "opinion" in the same misleading way that infomercials try to confuse the issue). Yers, Zakaria is a dishonest political hack. Doubt me? Don't. Zakaria even used the same, tired Obama/Democrat tactic of trying to label "infrastructure" spending as "invstment' rather than spending. As usual, there is no discusiion, or even metnion, of the question of why STATES are not doing this "investment" if it so clearly has so many future benefits. You say that states can't afford it? You and Fareed Zakaria are equally stupid. The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT can't afford it either--in fact can afford it LESS than the states can. But the Federal Government can use the SCAM of the idea of "free money", because the Federal Government does not have to live within its means. And our Liar-in-Chief is trasnparently not serious--as Fareed Zakaria is not--when he perodically says that the Federal Government must learn to "live within its means, like normal families".
However, let us go back to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Farred says that the best thinng we can do for unemployument is INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING (which we can't afford, on the increased levels he is talking aoubt). But leftist Democrats, including Fareed, have fiugured out a SCAM and a SHAM (like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) to DISGUISE their poposed spending (just like Fannie Mae and Freedie Mac). Zakaria, dishonest as they come, has the unmitigated gall to say that this should appela to "Tea Party" people, because our present way of building infrastructure is SOCIALISTIC. You may well wonder how DISHONEST a person associated with TIME has to be to use "socialistic" as a DIRTY WORD. That is how DISHONEST Zakaria is--oneo f the most dishonest people I have ever heard. The idea is that this "infrastructure bank" will issue "bonds", and be a "partnership" between government and private investors/industry. Yep. That is almost an exact description of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Talk about even MORE GALL. How can lyou dare to propose another "quasi-government" entity as we are still tlrying to dig out from the carnage of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Fareed Zakaria, by the way, says this will cost taxpayers a "limited amount. Again, DISHONEST. You might remember that the same promises were origingally made with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and they--at least--were investing in RAL assets (housing mortgages) that people WANT and NEED (as distinguished from "jigh speed rail", which peopole neither especially want nor need). Is the "infrastructure bank" going to take over electric utilities, water, pipelines, solar power, wind farms, and whatever else? Again, Zakiria has the FALL to suggest that this would represent a DECREASE in government power, when it would obviously represent an INCREASE in FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (centralized, least accountable) power (as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did, to disastrous results).
No, I am not fuly a "Tea Party" person, but you cann accurately call me an ally and sympathizer. How STUPID does Zakaria think I am? You Tea Party people out there know exactly how stupid he thinks you are. He thinks you wil buy this SCAM as a "free market", non-governmental "soluction" to both infrastructure and unemployment. NO ONE, onot in the mainstream media, such as with CNN or TIME--is this stupid. Yes, however stupid Zakaria thinks I am, I can assure him I think he is more stupid. And no, I am NOT impressed by Zakaria invoking the names of "Republicans" Chuck Hagel and Kay Bailey Hutchinson, to "suuport" this idea. I don't know whether they do or they don't. but this is a standard lecftist SCAM. They cite ISOLATED, almost always "establishmenet" or left leaning--Republicans as a means of suggesting that one of their SCAMS is not "far let". Sorry. I gave up buying that one some 40 years ago. There is a reason, by the way, that Kay Bailey Hutchinson was defeated for governor of Texas. I am not--as I have stated in this blog--a big van of Governor Rick Perry (my governor, as I live in El Paso), but I vastly prefer Perry to Hutchinson. And Hagel has made a name for hismelf TRASHING conservatives, and other Repulicans. There is a reason Hagel is leaving--or has left, as I am never to sure about this--the Untied States Senate after expiration of his term. Throwing out names like that is a DISHONEST leftist tactic that I think lpeople are seeing through. Leftist ONLY quote Repubicans when they are criticizing conservatives, or other Republicans.
Zakaria says that we are presently using "socialism" to build infrastructure. Yet, his "solution" is to propose a CENTRAL PLANNNING entity, with the power and protection of the Federal Government behind it, to take over ALL of our infrastructure (in the end). It simply does not get any more DISHONEST than that.
But isn't Zakaria proposing PRIVATE involvement? Yes, to a degree. But thre are reasons for that--the same reasons that Obama induced Wal-Mart, Big Pharma, Big Hospital, Big Medicne, and so many other big business and quasi-business entities (such as AARP) to support ObamaCare with BRIBES. In fact, Obama is STILL bribinb people--among other thinngs, with these waivers. Yep. Zakaria, Obama and the rest want to BRIBE Wall Street, Big Business, and others to go along with this "infrastructure bank" monster. It may not be "socialims", but it IS ECONOMIC FASCISM. Again, "economic fascism" predated Hitler, and is a theory that has nothing to do with the really viciouis POLITICAL fascism of Hitler. "Economic fascism" is the economic theory that there should be a PARTNERSHIP between Big Business and Big Government to centrally plan ur economy. It has been accurately described as: "socialism with a capitalist veneer". Obama is best described as an economic fascist. The same description applies to Fareed Zakaria and most of present day Wall Street (ys, Larry Kudlow, this continues to apply to YOU). GM? Big banks? Federal Reserve? Most financial commentators and people throughout our financial system? I am convinced that the majority of all of those people--not all, but the majority00can be described as eCONOMIC FASCISTS. That is why so many support Obama, even if they may hot trust him to do econoimic fascism as well as they would. It is definite that--even as some of our financial people don't trust Obama--that our financial people generally belive thaey have this PARTNERSHIP with Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve--economic fascism. Nope. That has not worked out so well for you and me either, although it has worked out pretty well--recently--for Wall Streeet. and big business profits.
Have you gotten the idea yet.? This is not even a NEW leftist idea. The original leftists--the Federalists and Alexander Hamilton, the man who would be king) came up with the idea of a "national bank" as an adjunct of the Federal Government (partly to get around this problem of "spending" and 'investment"--the idea really being an aid to centrally plan the economy). Now Ron Paul would argue that the Federal Reserve has the same faults, and more, as a national bank, and he is looking more right all of the time (although I am not yet ready to call for the eliminatiion of the Federal Reserve). The point is that, more than 200 years ago, we had a national bank--devised by that original leftist and egomaniac, Alexander Hamilton. I even read a leftist historian ("The War of 1812") taling aoub how the natinal bank helped the national economy, and how bad the Repubicans back then were for opposing it,, AND for wanting to cut taxes. These arguments are OLD. Now it is true that REPULICANS (showing the history of BETRAYAL is eqully old), or at least some of them, wanted to revive the "national bank" as a way of FUNDING DEFICIT SPENDING for The War of 1812. Andrew Jackson would basically do in the National Bank (as an institution run for the use of , and helipng the power of, the Federal Government). You can decide for yourself whether the Federal Reserve has turned into a national bank. It certainly is not a Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac type enttity, whith shares in private hands even as the Federal Government controlled policy and assumed liability. But Ben Bernanke, with "quantitative easing", has certainly made it hard to see how the Federal Reserve is not ASSUMINNG the power to direct everyaspect of our economy in a manner at least as great as envisioned by Alexander Hamiltioin.
Nope, Fareed Zakaria. You are a dishonest political hack wanting ever more leftist power concentrated in the Federal Government, and entities controlled by the Federal Government.
By the way, Farred, do you envision FOR PROFIT freeways and bridges? Again, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at least had the prospect of REVENUE when their mortgage investments were repaid (bad as that worked out for them, mainly because they were quasi-government entities that grew way too big). How do you get REVENUE from "infrastructure"? Nope., Fareed, you are NOT going to do it through high speed rail. The whole idea is just absurd, and a naked POWE GRAB for the Federal Government by use of DECEPTION (on the leftist theory that you can fool MOST of the people most of the time).
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Too bad Fareed Zakaria put his dieshonest "solution" out there ORALLY, meaning I could listen to every word rather than be unable to read it well. However, I did stop after listenting to the entire editorial, with increasing horror and disgust. I see no way Zakaria is worth listening to on anything. What can you say about the idea that CENTRALLY PLANNING our entire infrastructure is a DECREASE in cntralized government power, just because we adopt economic fascism as our model instead of straight socialism. And what can wyou say about IGNORING the lesson of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, even as we have FAILED to resolve what to do about them at this very time.? It is like Obama creating the biggest "entitlement" of them all, even as everyone--includin g leftists, in their usual sham way---is saying that our present entitlements are bankrupting us. If we can't even learn from recent history, and the present, then we surely are doomed to repeat our mistakes. I have not opened a TIME Magazine, by the way, since the Unabomber. Yes, that is partly because of how far left TIME is. But it is mainly because of the Time Essay ENDORSING the philosophy of the Unabomber (that anti-materialist "Manifesto").