There are two major flaws in Napolitano's thinking. One is very obvious.
He says early on, that just after the rebellion, we had a free market. Yeah, except for the thousands of enslaved Africans, taken and bound against their will. Or how about the rigid social laws enacted by many societies (free marketers always say that you cannot have a free market without a free society).
Look, I know that the Judge didn't mean anything by it. But you have to understand, that a lot of Americans are frustrated with this attitude that "we just have to go back to the 1700s or the 1800s"...because there was a segment of the population that did HORRIBLY during that time, and whites like the Judge just aren't aware of it. It doesn't even cross their mind.
Secondly, his depiction of the housing crisis is flawed. He says the government forced the banks to make loans. So the government forced the bank to make profit? Because the bankers made tons of profit from those loans...the government removed barriers to those loans (by letting them leverage their capital), removed regulation that was intended to prevent predatory lending, gave tax breaks to banks that gave low-income families loans...but the banks had the choice to take advantage of those things.
Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:
Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderato