The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Can be found here. But what if government encouragement of irresponsible behavior isn't just unfair to the responsible, but actively damaging to the economy?

View all comments (10) | Leave a comment

Mary| 2.23.09 @ 7:43PM

This got comment of the dayover at Contentions:

***J.E. Dyer Says:
February 23rd, 2009 at 2:04 PM

How we both do depends on what we do at home. Neither of us has the power to bail the other out — although we do have the power to injure each other. A very common human situation, and one we never seem to learn from for the next time.

America’s economic power is, and has always been, in the freedom of enterprise in our people. We can weaken ourselves by keeping the people’s capital — savings, investment, home equity — in a value-flux. The more government tries to impose an arbitrary value on our collective assets, the worse that situation will get. We can weaken ourselves by preventing the people from accumulating capital. Very easy to do: increase government expenditures. Whether you pay for that with increased taxes or with inflation, either way you prevent the people from accumulating capital, and using it.

If we do ourselves in, with policies that discourage capital formation, we will be doing it to ourselves. It’s what we did under FDR in the 1930s. China doesn’t have our economic options — by the choice of her leaders. If she doesn’t unleash the people, in an honest manner, and with government protection of individual rights to capital and property, she will continue to be unsalvageable EXCEPT by the increased consumption of other nations’ peoples.

Some day, we’re going to look back on 2008 and 2009, and wonder why it seemed so almighty important to prevent a few finance firms from going bankrupt. Fifty years from now, we will either still be paying for that decision, or will be in an unrecognizable political landscape, after the political effort to “make” overleveraged firms be worth more than they really were brought down our constitutional, rule-of-law heritage.***

This guy is very smart, I learn so much from his comments. He gets to the heart of what I think you're getting at.

Dan| 2.23.09 @ 8:12PM

Why bother with the more charitable view?

Brooks has behaved like a real, live, Horse's a** ever since landing his little gig over at The New York Times.

He's desperate for some love from the establishment, {got to hand it to The Times on that, they have a real eye for Conservatives itching to come out of the closet...}.

Pound away on him. Fire for effect!

Interloper| 2.23.09 @ 10:28PM

David Brooks should just go on and cut the apron strings tying him to conservatives. Wisely, he was one of the first commentators to see right through Caribou Barbie. Perhaps a run for President by Sarah Palin will be what it takes for him to finally break free. If Right Wing hatchet man David Brock could admit that he was wrong and leave evil behind, so can Brooks.

Brooks' take on help for some victims of the mortgage crisis is apropos. Increasing the number of people losing their homes will do absolutely nothing to help the economy. Helping them remain housed will.

Alan rooks| 2.24.09 @ 9:26AM

i have some respect for those who admit they are socialists, however crypto-socialists are phonies.

but perhaps you don't mind being a fake?

Alan Brooks| 2.24.09 @ 9:27AM

... it doesn't disturb your conscience to be a phony?

Jeremiah| 2.24.09 @ 9:45AM

Brooks's piece in the Times this morning offers a pretty good way of distinguishing between a conservative and a liberal worldview. Rather than seeing it, as many here do, as a Manichaean division based on moral righteousness, Brooks argues that the division is actually the result of differing levels of epistemological confidence.

Interloper| 2.24.09 @ 3:21PM

"Epistemological confidence"? Please! No need to wax faux erudite. Brooks is just telling it like it is.

The overwhelming majority of Americans agree with the President's efforts to mitigate the economic crises so far. His approval rate is 63 percent according to the recent NYT/CBS national poll. Nearly 80 percent approve of his efforts to be bipartisan. An equally huge majority say the Republicans are being obstructionists.

Kat| 2.24.09 @ 4:23PM

Obama's approval rating is 59% at Gallup today--first time it's been below 60%. His approval rating is going to be in the tank before he can fill his cabinet.

Interloper| 2.24.09 @ 9:06PM

The true statistics for President Obama's approval rating in today's Gallup Poll report is 63 percent. See the results here:

http://tinyurl.com/acq48w

I have never observed Ruth/Kat get anything right.

ruth| 2.24.09 @ 10:36PM

Obama's negatives have tripled since January!! People are starting to catch on to this pretender. Poor, poor Groper, is gonna do some cryin' instead of lyin' soon.

Leave a Comment

N.B. We encourage readers to share and discuss their thoughtful and relevant comments about this Spectator article. Comments are routinely monitored and will be deleted if profane, bigoted, or grossly impolite. Please be respectful. (And don't feed the trolls!) Thank you.

More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/02/23/a-more-charitable-view-of-broo

ADVERTISEMENT

SPONSORED LINKS

Special Feature

Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:

A Time for Choosing

James Piereson

The Road from Serfdom

Stephen Moore and Peter Ferrara

FLASHBACK TO: 1984

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

Meet the Flukes!

F. H. Buckley | 5.25.12

The Wisconsin Turning Point

Peter Ferrara | 5.23.12

In Search of Muhammad

Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi | 5.25.12

Age and Kyl

Quin Hillyer | 5.25.12

Follow Me

Jay D. Homnick | 5.25.12

A Test of National Honor

Hal G.P. Colebatch | 5.25.12

How About the Record of DOE Capital?

William Tucker | 5.25.12

The Great Debate

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. | 5.24.12

ADVERTISEMENT