Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Excellent argument for better financial regulation
The Bank of Central Planning
By Peter Raymond
Democrats have designed the financing mechanism to secure the enormous sums needed to complete their transformative central planning initiatives -- the "green" infrastructure projects and smart growth or "livable communities" agenda. It is called the National Infrastructure Development Bank Act of 2009 (HR 2521), sponsored by Congresswomen DeLauro (D-CT) along with 59 co-sponsors.
In a govtrack.us interview, Representative DeLauro explains that the "size of the federal deficit" is prohibiting access to needed funds for what she calls a "national growth policy." It seems this central planning enthusiast has determined that tax increases and federal borrowing will not meet the financing needs of the left's very ambitious agendas, so she has introduced an alternative financing vehicle.
Undeterred by the national debt crisis exacerbated by the record deficit spending DeLauro supported, the congresswoman remains confident that her legislation will "put the US economy on a track for future economic growth and economic security ... for families." However, the poor track record of economic policies she has supported, such as the American Recovery and Revitalization Act of 2009, does raise doubts about her optimistic assessment of her own proposal.
Showing visible concern that her idea of a public partnership with private investors might be viewed negatively by pro-government supporters, DeLauro was quick to emphasize, "I am not talking about privatization. I want to get their capital and use it for building in the United States." It is unfortunate, and symbolic of the pervasive anti-free market attitude in Washington, when a congressional representative is clearly uncomfortable promoting private enterprise.
The fundamental purpose of the Act is to create a self-sustaining, independent, and "wholly-owned government corporation" called The National Infrastructure Development Bank (NIBD). The bank will facilitate a "public-private" investment partnership and establish a revolving pool of capital to fund infrastructure projects. Private capital will be accessed by issuing and selling debt securities and public benefit bonds and direct borrowing from the global capital markets. The bank will then distribute all the necessary funds to bank board-approved projects.
The Obama administration has already announced plans to use $50 billion to fund and launch a new infrastructure bank. As an apparent proponent of a government-controlled economy combined with Obama's public support of this initiative, HR 2521 will undoubtedly be put on the fast track. If the Democrat leaders decide to rush through a series of bills during a lame duck session, then it is conceivable that HR 2521 could reach the floor for a vote before the end of the year.
Although the concept may seem appealing at first glance, it is important to remember that central planners have a long tradition of presenting only the short-term benefits of their government programs and not fully accounting for costs or foreseeing the long-term unintended consequences. All too often, social and economic justice experiments snowball into "unexpected" busts which are then exploited to initiate even more intrusive and expensive corrective measures. The housing market calamity is the most recent example of a grand government scheme that led to a boom-and-bust cycle.
So what can possibly go wrong with creating a national infrastructure bank?
American Thinker: The Bank of Central Planning
Excellent argument for better financial regulation
There's a difference between responsible financial regulation and using intimidation and bigotry to force banks into doing your will. Not only are they using thuggery but they're placing their people in positions of leadership and literally taking them over.
And now they're planning on starting up their own banking system:
The Bank of Central Planning
By Peter Raymond
Democrats have designed the financing mechanism to secure the enormous sums needed to complete their transformative central planning initiatives -- the "green" infrastructure projects and smart growth or "livable communities" agenda. It is called the National Infrastructure Development Bank Act of 2009 (HR 2521), sponsored by Congresswomen DeLauro (D-CT) along with 59 co-sponsors.
In a govtrack.us interview, Representative DeLauro explains that the "size of the federal deficit" is prohibiting access to needed funds for what she calls a "national growth policy." It seems this central planning enthusiast has determined that tax increases and federal borrowing will not meet the financing needs of the left's very ambitious agendas, so she has introduced an alternative financing vehicle.
Undeterred by the national debt crisis exacerbated by the record deficit spending DeLauro supported, the congresswoman remains confident that her legislation will "put the US economy on a track for future economic growth and economic security ... for families." However, the poor track record of economic policies she has supported, such as the American Recovery and Revitalization Act of 2009, does raise doubts about her optimistic assessment of her own proposal.
Showing visible concern that her idea of a public partnership with private investors might be viewed negatively by pro-government supporters, DeLauro was quick to emphasize, "I am not talking about privatization. I want to get their capital and use it for building in the United States." It is unfortunate, and symbolic of the pervasive anti-free market attitude in Washington, when a congressional representative is clearly uncomfortable promoting private enterprise.
The fundamental purpose of the Act is to create a self-sustaining, independent, and "wholly-owned government corporation" called The National Infrastructure Development Bank (NIBD). The bank will facilitate a "public-private" investment partnership and establish a revolving pool of capital to fund infrastructure projects. Private capital will be accessed by issuing and selling debt securities and public benefit bonds and direct borrowing from the global capital markets. The bank will then distribute all the necessary funds to bank board-approved projects.
The Obama administration has already announced plans to use $50 billion to fund and launch a new infrastructure bank. As an apparent proponent of a government-controlled economy combined with Obama's public support of this initiative, HR 2521 will undoubtedly be put on the fast track. If the Democrat leaders decide to rush through a series of bills during a lame duck session, then it is conceivable that HR 2521 could reach the floor for a vote before the end of the year.
Although the concept may seem appealing at first glance, it is important to remember that central planners have a long tradition of presenting only the short-term benefits of their government programs and not fully accounting for costs or foreseeing the long-term unintended consequences. All too often, social and economic justice experiments snowball into "unexpected" busts which are then exploited to initiate even more intrusive and expensive corrective measures. The housing market calamity is the most recent example of a grand government scheme that led to a boom-and-bust cycle.
So what can possibly go wrong with creating a national infrastructure bank?
American Thinker: The Bank of Central Planning
You've said that about eight times in this thread. It's your little fallback comment when you find your ass in your hands, which is all the time. It salves your wounded little psyche.Nope, your argument was straw and I burned it up. Nope, there is legal business and there is illegal business. You know that, so I am not worried about your thinking here. You are the economic equivalent of the board to bigrebnc's racism. Not to worry; we know the difference.
Such a imbecile, you really are.
In straight talk, you have nothing.
The bottom line idiots such as Jake will never see, and if they see will never admit to.using intimidation and bigotry to force banks into doing your will. Not only are they using thuggery but they're placing their people in positions of leadership and literally taking them over.
These idiots really put out a spot that basically says they don't want to see any job creation. Calling people "shills for big business" while 22 million sit at home, unemployed.
So, here's my response:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0o-s9_-2FgA
Rove is correctly identified in the video.These idiots really put out a spot that basically says they don't want to see any job creation. Calling people "shills for big business" while 22 million sit at home, unemployed.
So, here's my response:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0o-s9_-2FgA
Any ad with Karl rove in it takes away any impact they were trying to have..
as for the rest of the ad, more jobs went off shore during Bush's tenure than at any other time. IOW, the op is lying...
Rove is correctly identified in the video.These idiots really put out a spot that basically says they don't want to see any job creation. Calling people "shills for big business" while 22 million sit at home, unemployed.
So, here's my response:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0o-s9_-2FgA
Any ad with Karl rove in it takes away any impact they were trying to have..
as for the rest of the ad, more jobs went off shore during Bush's tenure than at any other time. IOW, the op is lying...
You're comparing eight years to two, by the way. But I imagine you realize that. You're also solely blaming BOOOOOSH for what Congress actually did.
You know that too.
Rove is correctly identified in the video.These idiots really put out a spot that basically says they don't want to see any job creation. Calling people "shills for big business" while 22 million sit at home, unemployed.
So, here's my response:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0o-s9_-2FgA
Any ad with Karl rove in it takes away any impact they were trying to have..
as for the rest of the ad, more jobs went off shore during Bush's tenure than at any other time. IOW, the op is lying...
You're comparing eight years to two, by the way. But I imagine you realize that. You're also solely blaming BOOOOOSH for what Congress actually did.
You know that too.
Of Course Grump is lying. He has no other recourse. Economy was better under Bush...albiet Bushs' Domestic policies have been under scrutiny by the majority of us for his 'Comapssionate Conservatism' which was an open door to the Statist to do what they are NOW.
Grump isn't lying, he's just pointing out that more jobs went offshore between 2000-2008 than have between 2008-2010.Rove is correctly identified in the video.Any ad with Karl rove in it takes away any impact they were trying to have..
as for the rest of the ad, more jobs went off shore during Bush's tenure than at any other time. IOW, the op is lying...
You're comparing eight years to two, by the way. But I imagine you realize that. You're also solely blaming BOOOOOSH for what Congress actually did.
You know that too.
Of Course Grump is lying. He has no other recourse. Economy was better under Bush...albiet Bushs' Domestic policies have been under scrutiny by the majority of us for his 'Comapssionate Conservatism' which was an open door to the Statist to do what they are NOW.
Presidents have very little actual power. It's CONGRESS, stupid. Same deal now, Obama is a victim of this same Congress.Rove is correctly identified in the video.Any ad with Karl rove in it takes away any impact they were trying to have..
as for the rest of the ad, more jobs went off shore during Bush's tenure than at any other time. IOW, the op is lying...
You're comparing eight years to two, by the way. But I imagine you realize that. You're also solely blaming BOOOOOSH for what Congress actually did.
You know that too.
Of course I blame Bush. I always put blame where it is due. You don't?
Grump isn't lying, he's just pointing out that more jobs went offshore between 2000-2008 than have between 2008-2010.
Big time analysis!
He's also not really addressing the points made in the video, which is no surprise at all. But I give him credit for at least addressing the topic instead of deflecting like the idiots of the board such as Jake and OldCrocks feel they have to do.
Presidents have very little actual power. It's CONGRESS, stupid. Same deal now, Obama is a victim of this same Congress.Rove is correctly identified in the video.
You're comparing eight years to two, by the way. But I imagine you realize that. You're also solely blaming BOOOOOSH for what Congress actually did.
You know that too.
Of course I blame Bush. I always put blame where it is due. You don't?
You're too short sighted to realize the GOP never had a working majority under BOOOOSH, certianly nothing like what Obama's had.Grump isn't lying, he's just pointing out that more jobs went offshore between 2000-2008 than have between 2008-2010.
Big time analysis!
He's also not really addressing the points made in the video, which is no surprise at all. But I give him credit for at least addressing the topic instead of deflecting like the idiots of the board such as Jake and OldCrocks feel they have to do.
1) Don't you have to ask yourself why they went of shore. The govt created the environment so these companies would go off sure...who was in charge of congress during those first six years of his term?
2) Honestly? I found the video just a bunch of empty rhetoric with somebody's opinion. No supporting facts of data....shrug..
Grump isn't lying, he's just pointing out that more jobs went offshore between 2000-2008 than have between 2008-2010.Rove is correctly identified in the video.
You're comparing eight years to two, by the way. But I imagine you realize that. You're also solely blaming BOOOOOSH for what Congress actually did.
You know that too.
Of Course Grump is lying. He has no other recourse. Economy was better under Bush...albiet Bushs' Domestic policies have been under scrutiny by the majority of us for his 'Comapssionate Conservatism' which was an open door to the Statist to do what they are NOW.
Big time analysis!
He's also not really addressing the points made in the video, which is no surprise at all. But I give him credit for at least addressing the topic instead of deflecting like the idiots of the board such as Jake and OldCrocks feel they have to do.
I answered this. The GOP "majority" was in name only. You know that. They never had the super majority Obama enjoys.Presidents have very little actual power. It's CONGRESS, stupid. Same deal now, Obama is a victim of this same Congress.Of course I blame Bush. I always put blame where it is due. You don't?
That would be ignorning the first six years under his tenure.
tell me - and give me specifics - what legislation was passed in Congress after the 2006 mid-terms that lead directly to this situation we are in today.
See, I knew me telling Jake that the more intelligent left-leaners have avoided this thread would bring out a couple of standard bearers. Like Jake, you're looking at your ass in your hand wondering what happened. Call out some more reinforcements.
You're too short sighted to realize the GOP never had a working majority under BOOOOSH, certianly nothing like what Obama's had.
MY video which is an answer to theirs, has nothing but truth in it, while theirs has nothing but paranoia and fear. Have you seen their original?
