What Once Were Jokes Are Now Bills
By Mitch Berg
It’s an old joke among conservatives; when faced with an epidemic, a liberal will just pass a law banning illness, with draconian punishments for getting sick.
It just goes to show you – with liberals, today’s jokes are tomorrow’s bills:
“This amendment that I offer would be mandatory rather than permissive,” said [North Dakota’s soon-to-be ex-senator Byron] Dorgan. “If you have risen to be judged to have been ‘too big to fail,’ which would cause a grave financial risk to our entire economy … the best most direct and most effective approach will be to have those institutions divest those activities and those portions of their business that have made them ‘too big to fail.’”
I wondered if it might not be a fiendish spoof for a moment – one of those hoaxes that sweeps the internet.
According to Dorgan, his amendment will stop the future risk of taxpayer bailouts on Wall Street. The amendment will appoint the Financial Oversight Council to identify companies that pose a high risk to the financial stability of the U.S. and restrict their business activities until they are no longer a concern.
“It is another approach that is far superior, much more direct, more decisive and one that will produce better results,” said Dorgan. “It is the only one I think that effectively will end ‘too big to fail.’”
It’s galling to have to keep repeating to liberals; under a free market, no company ever gets “too big to fail”. Only the government declares companies “too big to fail”; under the free market, they just fail. And that failure is a good thing. It rids the economy of failed businesses, and makes room for new ones.
What we need is legislation to prevent Congresspeople from being too ignorant to serve.
(Rob Port at Say Anything also has the story)
May 5th, 2010 at 7:35 am
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by mitchpberg, NARN2. NARN2 said: Dorgan's bill would prevent companies getting "too big to fail". http://bit.ly/cT2p3j #narn2 #hhrs – the mind reels @ liberal idiocy. […]
May 5th, 2010 at 8:46 am
Actually, the concept that Senator Dorgan is proposing is the same one that Teddy Roosevelt so capably championed in anti-trust legislation and that Glass-Steagal would have accomplished had it not been removed.
But then, the overwhelming majority of economists also repudiate the variations of horse-and-sparrow-trickle-down-supply-side economics as a bad, indeed failed idea too, that for some reason conservatives keep trying to promote as a repackaged ‘new’ idea—–from the 1800s, despit
May 5th, 2010 at 8:47 am
despite no evidence that it works, or that it works as well as tax cuts for the majority of the consumer population. (sorry – hit submit too soon)
May 5th, 2010 at 8:57 am
So now, barely 12 months on, ex-Dorgan wants to split up BoA and ML. And Dimmocrats want the government to run every aspect of our lives. Jokes indeed.
Dognabbit, did you say something?
May 5th, 2010 at 9:15 am
I suggest we apply Senator Dorgan’s principle to the federal government. It’s obviously become “too big to fail”, so we really should force it to break up. Start by cutting the Cabinet in half and closing seceral departments.
May 5th, 2010 at 9:16 am
Kermit, are you saying that pehaps sometimes the gov’t has made/spent enough money?
May 5th, 2010 at 9:29 am
Dog Gone wrote:
But then, the overwhelming majority of economists also repudiate the variations of horse-and-sparrow-trickle-down-supply-side economics as a bad, indeed failed idea too, that for some reason conservatives keep trying to promote as a repackaged ‘new’ idea—–from the 1800s, despite no evidence that it works, or that it works as well as tax cuts for the majority of the consumer population.
So we know from Dog Gone that the vast majority of economists use run-on sentences.
I have a harder time getting Dog Gone’s meaning. Repudiate supply-side economics? That’s hardly the same thing as “trickle down” economics. Are “demand-side” economics better? How? In what terms?
May 5th, 2010 at 9:39 am
Now some jackasses are trying to ban bottled water in their city in taxachussets
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/23320994/detail.html
liberals truly don’t understand the free market. The day bottled water becomes a black market item is the day we cease to exist as a sane country.
May 5th, 2010 at 9:40 am
Oh and I swear to God that story sounded like it was from the Onion, talk about life imitating art huh?
May 5th, 2010 at 9:56 am
the overwhelming majority of economists
source for that DG. And as my old econ professor said, “if you get 100 economists in a room and ask them a question you will get 100 different answers”
The only thing you can get an ‘overwhelmingly majority of economists’ to agree on is that they can’t come to a consensus on anything. Even capitalism.
May 5th, 2010 at 9:57 am
DG,
Actually, the concept that Senator Dorgan is proposing is the same one that Teddy Roosevelt so capably championed in anti-trust legislation and that Glass-Steagal would have accomplished had it not been removed.
And which is, and has always been, then and now, an stupid idea.
But then, the overwhelming majority of economists also repudiate the variations of horse-and-sparrow-trickle-down-supply-side economics as a bad, indeed failed idea too,
Well, no. They don’t. Oh, I’ll allow that an overwhelming majority of the economists that are Penigma’s neighbors might reject it (although they can’t go on record to say so). But no, there is no overwhelming rejection of the Austrian School. There is an epic battle between Hayek and Keynes, but if you want to claim “overwhelming majorities”, please substantiate.
You can’t, but I’ll ask nicely.
tor that it works as well as tax cuts for the majority of the consumer population.
You’re mixing subjects here.
Again!~
May 5th, 2010 at 10:19 am
We need to find a more graceful way to describe when our commentators (on both sides of the political spectrum) are talking out of their asses.
May 5th, 2010 at 10:32 am
Chuck,
The federal government makes a 100% profit on refined oil. I would think liberals should find that simply immoral.
May 5th, 2010 at 11:14 am
“We need to find a more graceful way to describe when our commentators (on both sides of the political spectrum) are talking out of their asses.”
Peeving?
RickDeFiLing?
Krodifying?
Let’s call it a tie and use them as synonyms.
May 5th, 2010 at 11:36 am
Capitalist countries have to build walls to keep people out. Communist countries have to build walls to keep people in.
That’s all the economics you need to determine whether capitalism or communism is better for people.
My price for teaching you? Nothing. I’m a terrible capitalist.
May 5th, 2010 at 11:44 am
I like Peeving. It has both deep context and a long history.
May 5th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
CrapFooting?
May 5th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
Footshiting?
May 5th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
“Dognabbit, did you say something?”
Obviously not.
…. …. ….
Terry, what you saw was a copy and paste together from multiple lefty blogs.
“I have a harder time getting Dog Gone’s meaning.”
True, it wouldn’t make sense even if it were done with better grammar.
May 5th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
Stop peeving Krod. I don’t appreciate your bad Kermitude.
May 5th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Was that a footism?
May 5th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
if you get 100 economists in a room and ask them a question you will get 100 different answers”
I always head it as “If you get 10 economists in a room and ask a question you’ll get 15 different answers.”
May 5th, 2010 at 8:42 pm
If you get 15 different liberals in a room and ask a question you’ll get 1 answer. Go figure.
May 5th, 2010 at 9:21 pm
“It’s Bush’s fault!!!!