So President Obama was on Jay Leno last night. I didn’t watch, mostly because I rarely watch late night talk shows… heck, I rarely watch late night anything (I tend to go to bed early and get up early). I will say that it’s interesting he went on the show… gotta keep up his hip rock-star image I guess. 

Reading that CNN article, President Obama was quoted as saying:

Obama said earlier this week that he’ll “take responsibility” for AIG executives receiving those controversial bonuses — roughly $165 million — while the company took $173 billion in government bailouts. Congress is looking for ways to recoup all or some of that money.

“The larger problem is we’ve got to get back to an attitude where people know enough is enough, and people have a sense of responsibility and they understand that their actions are going to have an impact on everybody,” he said. “If we can get back to those values that built America, then I think we’re going to be OK.”

First, if he’s willing to accept responsibility, I hope he’s willing to accept what comes with responsibility. Time will tell. Based upon his past actions I’m certainly skeptical, but I’ll give him a chance and would love to proven wrong.

Second, I do think he’s right about the latter part: that we need to get back to a point where people have a sense of responsibility and understand their choices can have greater impacts. Yes, I do agree if we get back to these values we will be OK. But again, I’m skeptical of Mr. Obama. Behaviors and policies enacted so far rob people of the ability to be responsible. You can argue if bailouts rewarded bad behavior, but certainly they did not punish the bad behavior. When you feed at the government teet, when consequences of misbehavior don’t directly affect you, when you aren’t directly invested in the results of performance, then you have far less motivation to be responsible. 

And let’s not forget the growing Nanny State…. that does nothing for taking us back to responsibility.

So President Obama, as always you speak a good game. But talk is cheap, and you’re in a great position to lead by example. Let’s see if you can live those words you spoke last night.

From The Liberator Online, Vol. 14, No. 4‘s Persuasion Power Point by Michael Cloud, regarding the “credit crisis/crunch”:

Let’s examine the word they’re using to define the issue: “credit.” The word “credit” is one side of the coin. The flip side is the word “debt.” You can’t have one side of the coin without the other.

“All credit is debt,” wrote Henry Hazlitt in Economics in One Lesson. “Proposals for an increased volume of credit, therefore, are merely another name for proposals for an increased burden of debt. When they say the way to economic salvation is to increase credit, it is just as if they said the way to economic salvation is to increase debt: these are different names for the same thing seen from opposite sides.”

So why are the analysts and commentators only talking about “credit”?

Why aren’t beating the drum for “debt”?

They could claim: “To make corporations solvent, we must put them deeper in debt.”

Or: “Borrowing and debt are the lifeblood of American business.”

Or: “We have a debt crisis: the only remedy is to let business get further and further into debt.”

Or: “Unless major corporations can dramatically increase their financial liabilities, they can’t start turning a profit.”

Or: “Wall Street’s biggest problem is a lack of access to greater borrowing, more liabilities, and increased financial burdens.”

Or: “Major corporations are failing because they do not owe enough money, because they cannot run up a bigger debt.”

Or: “Businesses are failing because of a shortage of debt.”

Turn over the word coin. Take their sentences, their words, and replace the word “credit” with the word “debt.” Ask them whether they still believe it. Ask their listeners and readers whether they still want it.

Well worth your consideration, folks.