Cantrell, Delhommey already posted the straw man... you gotta come better than that.
You'll not find any Tea Party member that is in line with the official party philosophy that EVER supported bank bailouts. Moreover, NEVER has corporate cronyism ever been deemed a tenet of free market capitalism as is supported by Constitutional maxims. These arguments and more were born out in the subsequent Federalist Papers (where Madison and Hamilton laid out the arguments pretty succinctly).
The Commerce Clause is not the endless bounty of living document interpretation that so many judges have insisted upon using to prop up fallacious precedents over the years. It was put in place for the purpose of settling disputes between the States when it comes to trade for purposes of regulation... not a bastion for federal government to impose its will to micromanage our business affairs. No... the living part of this document is the amendment process. Otherwise, the document itself is meaningless.
If you've bothered to read the Constitution, you'll quickly find that it is born of a severe distrust of government. There was a long history giving good reason for that. That history has been repeated time and again in other countries to justify what held true back in that day.
So if Social Security and Obamacare are so great, then make them purely voluntary. There is no such thing as "a program so good it must be mandatory" . Banks shouldn't have been bailed out. Risky home loans should never have been federally subsidized. College loans should not be federally propped up. Medical care should not be propped up.
All of these have been and will continue to be abused to the point of bursting the bubble and breaking the backs of people that have otherwise been responsible. All the while, those that did not invoke responsible action have no consequences for their actions. A truly free market would have corrected this long ago. All we are doing now is inflating a bubble to what Bernanke thinks is infinitely inflatable. Never mind what has played out all over the world in the last century alone. We'll just have to see this train wreck to its spectacular end for Americans to actually finally get what has been proven about human nature throughout our relatively short history.
So terribly wrong that you can't take the time out to correct me on a single thing. Great job there.
I will give you the cliff notes.
1) If making social security voluntary resulted in even a 5% reduction in Social Security it would result in a smaller economic output of around 63 billion dollars and would cost the economy around 400,000 jobs. These losses would also be disproportional to rural areas who would be hit the hardest and can not afford to take that kind of hit. That is the economic impact, that doesn't even take into account the middle to lower class people who wouldn't volunteer because they need to feed their families and pay their mortgage that would end up homeless once they leave the workforce. But of course you could make the argument that feeding your family or paying your mortgage would not be "responsible". What the Tea Party doesn't seem to realize is that Social Security is not just a social safety net for quality of life, it is also an economic safety net.
2) Obamacare didn't really do anything to consumers except mandate that they have insurance. So before Obamacare health care was voluntary
and the people that were punished for those who chose not to have it were the "people that have otherwise been responsible" who had insurance or paid their bills, only to have them priced outrageously to recoup the people who did not have insurance and didn't pay their medical bills.
3) If the banks were not bailed out, the smaller banks did not have the capital to assume the bigger bank's assets and liabilities (therefore free market principles would have destroyed the economy because there was no one else big enough to take over their market share, thus "too big to fail"), therefore without government assistance on the merger of some of the larger banks, asset relief by the government, and the government capitalizing the banks to loosen credit, you would have seen a literal evaporation of most of the nation's wealth, retirement packages disappearing, and frozen credit. Business rely very heavily on bank credit to pay their payroll. Between the frozen credit and the loss of wealth it would have resulted in unemployment of as high as, 50%-60% and would have reduced the US to a third world country virtually overnight.
Why do I say that? There has been only one major crisis that the government did not step in and assist the banks or force the other banks to assist, it is now known as the "Great Depression" which was actually a smaller shock to the system than the one we experienced in 2008 yet resulted in unemployment of 24% overall and 30% for non farm workers compared to a max of @10% and 10.5% respectively in this current recession. Plus the bailout actually reduced the decades of stagnation that this type of shock would likely cause.
Not to mention that the reason we got there was because of the free market taking advantage of deregulation and throwing consumer protection out the window in favor of big profits, which is the achilles heel of free market without checks and balances (i.e. regulation). Study after study also show that the Community Reinvestment Act did not cause the housing bubble.
4) The government did not subsidize high risk loans nor did they force banks to create them, banks set their own lending standards.
5) without federal loans on education you effectively set up a Plutocracy by making sure that the only people who can afford to get a higher education is those who come from a wealthier background.
6) Medical care has to be propped up because illness and health care contribute to 62% of all bankruptcies in the US. Without medical assistance that number would be even higher and there would be even more bankruptcies.
So yeah, it is pretty clear that every point you made would be disastrous to the US economy and quality of life and I stand by my earlier statementhttp://www.minneapol...lay.cfm?id=4136http://www.pnhp.org/...ruptcy-2009.pdfhttp://www.dailyyond...2011/12/18/3649http://srdc.msstate..../graphmaps.htmlhttp://www.project-s...g-toward-sanityhttp://www.factcheck...and-bankruptcy/http://www.gao.gov/n...tems/d09782.pdfhttp://www.fhfa.gov/...hars9132010.pdfhttp://www.ccc.unc.e...nnieFreddie.phphttp://research.stlo...12/2012-005.pdfhttp://www.time.com/...2136864,00.html