|
The problem is that we do need another Great Depression ...
Until Wall Street is forced to face the reality of its actions, nothing will be learned.
Wow.
Do you really think that Wall Street will learn from this? Did Wall Street suffer during the Great Depression? Or did the rest of the country?
I wouldn't wish another Great Depression on anyone. Especially not me or my children or my grandchildren or...
They were 'forced' to learn their lesson in the 30's too. You'll notice that they've forgotten it all. You cannot teach people not to be greedy, particularly across generations. Even if we let each and every broker, fund manager, and banking executive ruin themselves today, there is no reason to think that their replacements in twenty years will have learned the lesson.The problem is that we do need another Great Depression to "learn that the finances sector needs to be weaned away from their 'greed is good' short-term-profit / long-term-meltdown / somebody-elses-problem mentality."
Until Wall Street is forced to face the reality of its actions, nothing will be learned.
Yes, but this bail-out is fundamentally flawed. It will end up prolonging this problem - and the debts that the government will run up during this "bail-out" will be with us beyond the next generation.
Yes, but this bail-out is fundamentally flawed. It will end up prolonging this problem - and the debts that the government will run up during this "bail-out" will be with us beyond the next generation.
That's true. This really is a 'lesser of two evils' situation. I don't think ANYONE thinks the bail out is a good idea, except in the specific context of avoiding the biggest 'bank run' in history.
Wow, check out Section 8 of the draft proposal for the bailout plan.
Sec. 8. Review.
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
So not even the Supreme Court would have authority to revoke.
Actually, the Supreme Court would be the only agency who could revoke that (by declairing that section of the law unconstitutional - since it voids the Separation Of Powers.)
What I mean by 'capitalocracy' is that currently 'money = power'.
Currently?
What I mean by 'capitalocracy' is that currently 'money = power'.Currently?
Money has always been a method to power. Largely because historically, those with power have been willing to trade some of it away in exchange for more money (e.g. you could essentially buy a noble title from a king, but you couldn't buy a kingdom. You could buy an appointment to the clergy, but you can't bribe your way into becoming the Pope.)
However, in the modern American system, the only power is money.
Awesome. Capitalocracy. I have been looking for that word for a long time.
Glad I could help. (I didn't steal it from anywhere I know of, but I can't imagine I'm the first person to coin it.)
Money has always been a method to power.
Historically, those in power have been manipulated by those with money. The golden rule never goes out of style.
(I didn't steal it from anywhere I know of, but I can't imagine I'm the first person to coin it.)
Sure enough: www.capitalocracy.net has been around since 2004.
|
So instead you want a dude that plans on raiseing taxes on anyone making over $75,000 running the show?Umm, under the plans I've read the taxes are lowered for everyone making up to $226,000 a year. I would like to read the plans you've read because they don't mesh with any I've seen. I would assume your info came from someone who doesn't like Obama as opposed to a non-biased group.
Actually, my information is based on an ammendment that Joe Biden and Barack Obama voted for, which is part of the congressional record. They both voted to increase taxes on Social Security benefits in excess of $75,000 a year.
David, you do realize that there's a difference between Social Security Benefits and 'All Income', right? You were saying that as if a working individual making $80,000 a year would see a tax spike, which is not supported at all.
'People receiving more than $75,000 a year in social security' and 'people earning more than $75,000 a year' are not the same thing. At all.
Oh, and given that the median household income in the United States is about $50,000, I'd still be okay with raising taxes on individuals making $75,000 a year.
|
Wow, check out Section 8 of the draft proposal for the bailout plan.
Sec. 8. Review.
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
So not even the Supreme Court would have authority to revoke.
Damn. Looks like the GSL lawyers are writing some laws now.....
joking.
We're 5/7 of the way to spending this amount on Iraq. At least a better use of the money, says I.
|
|
David, you do realize that there's a difference between Social Security Benefits and 'All Income', right? You were saying that as if a working individual making $80,000 a year would see a tax spike, which is not supported at all.
'People receiving more than $75,000 a year in social security' and 'people earning more than $75,000 a year' are not the same thing. At all.
Yeah, I noticed that also. And even if he meant that anyone making 80,000 a year would have a higher SS tax, that still doesn't include all the other changes that result in an overall tax decrease of between $550 a year and $2800 a year depending on where you fall for income up to $227,000 a year.
Obama's Tax plansWiki's Comparison of the candidates, Scroll down to 'economics' for the comparison chart.
Tangent on bailing out foreign banks:
Caught the following on my way home from work today:
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/09/22/pm_foreign_banks/
The idea that the U.S. could get a large equity stake in all the foreign banks that it bails out is interesting. The US could parley financial crisis into partial ownership of foreign-owned banks, as well as national banks that may have invested in now toxic US assets. I can't see the national bank of China being keen on thus US having such a share in their organization.
Note, this is just a thought experiment. I'm personally opposed to the Paulson plan as currently proposed.
|
|
They won't be able to sell enough Treasury bonds to pay for all this, they will have to inflate. The AIG bailout is inflationary, no bonds are planned to be sold to pay for it.
Yes they will. Bonds are considered 'safe', same as gold. When the rest of the financial market goes nuts, more people are willing to stuff their money in the matress.
AIG's bailout might not have required a special auction the same way the $700 Billion dollar plan does, but the Treasury still makes its books balance by selling bonds instead of just printing money. We're not that far gone. Yet.
They can probably sell the bonds, but the whispers are that the US's AAA credit rating is not a given. Plus debt must be paid off (by tax payers) and might crowd out (more productive) private debt if used to excess, which might have an unpleasant effect on econimic growth. I suspect a bit of inflation will be considered helpful in this context by politicians.
This had nothing to do with capitalism. The Federal Reserve lent fiat money to banks through its legally approved cartel. This caused the bubble. The banks overlent trusting that the government would step in and bail them out. The proper term for this is socialism.
You're right. Specifically, it's Corprate Socialism. What I mean by 'capitalocracy' is that currently 'money = power'. (As opposed to 'democracy' where people = power, or 'monarchy' where one=power, or even theocracy, where god = power.)
It's not really socialism. The term is moral hazard. And it is alive and well. Which candidate has received the most money from Fannie and Freddie? Obama. Which candidate wants to keep them alive, despite their distorting impact on the US housing market? Obama. That's lobbying for you. (I'm not making a pro- or anti- Obama comment by the way, as (1) I don't have a vote and (2) McCain has his own skeletons.)
<sarcasm>I for one would like to welcome our new socialist way of life.
Don’t confuse social democracy with democratic socialism.
So not even the Supreme Court would have authority to revoke.
What moron drafts a bill like that? It just begs the SC to rule it null and void. Checks and balances = good.
I say we murder everyone making more than $250,000, take their money and give it to all of us. Then we can sit around and buy anything we want and not have to work.
I say we murder everyone making more than $250,000, take their money and give it to all of us. Then we can sit around and buy anything we want and not have to work.
Settle down, Karl.
|
|
As far as raising taxes, it has been shown that lowering taxes leads to more revenue for the government. The reason is that people are willing to spend more money, create more jobs, and therefore there is more money in the system. Ronald Reagan understood this, and a decade later we got the economy of the 1990's. Bill Clinton raised taxes and a decade later we have the economy we have today. During the Reagan administration, we went through several economic periods like we have today, that could be traced back to the economic policies of the 1970's of Nixion, Ford, and Carter. Here is my question? Why should we trust Obama with our economy when his chief advisors are the people who ran the economy into the ground, like the former head of Lehman Brothers, and the former head of Freddy Mac? Isn't the left telling us it was their poor decisions that put us where we are today?
|
|
Personally, I’m pleased to see Capitalism die an ignoble death. Time to usher in some social democracy, although Congress appears to have zero clue how to go about this (let’s throw the money at the people who screwed things up, yeah, that’ll fix it). Someone please call the French and the Irish and pick up some tips! The whole “crisis” makes me a little ill, as someone who has always been very careful with what little cash / debt he has. Rampant speculation, improper financial management on the part of consumers, and easing of banking restrictions put in place for this exact reason. Was anyone surprised when it tanked?
You do realize that France, Sweden, and most of the other social democrat nations are starting to move away from it because it is costing too much money?
|
I would like to believe that perhaps the old dog isn't too old to learn a new trick, and recognize that we don't need another Great Depression to learn that the finances sector needs to be weaned away from their 'greed is good' short-term-profit / long-term-meltdown / somebody-elses-problem mentality.I fully support the idea that a politician is allowed to change their mind in the face of changing input.
However, in the current case of McCain, I don't think that this is a well considered policy change, seeing as he's continued to call for deregulation throughout the buildup of this crisis (including the subprime morgage stuff that's been going on for over a year.) and into the crash last week.
Even if he means it, it's still wiser to go with the people who saw it coming.
mccain (and bush) saw it coming.
the problem in the housing market WAS the regulation, specifically the democrat pushed policy of punishing banks who didn't lend to "sub-optimal" borrowers and open branches in economically distressed areas. there were serious regulations in place to prevent banks from securing certain types of loans and offering some services if they continued to act in a "racist" manner by not giving mortgage loans to people who really couldn't afford them. and fannie mae/freddie mac, being quasi-government agencies in the first place, were the biggest pushers of loans to people who couldn't afford them, all in the name of "fairness" and "equality".
but, you know, dems and socialists can do no worng...
(as an aside, you should read some of the stories about the tenements that some of the beneficiaries of obama's largess when he was a state senator - includung his current campaign manager - ran. several were foreclosed, some condemned for being unfit for human habitation.)
|
Here is my question? Why should we trust Obama with our economy when his chief advisors are the people who ran the economy into the ground, like the former head of Lehman Brothers, and the former head of Freddy Mac? Isn't the left telling us it was their poor decisions that put us where we are today?
Thank you, I have been screaming that in my head ever since his name was brought up. Not that McCain is any better, aren't most of his policy advisors former lobbyists? I still can't believe that people take what Obama or McCain say seriously and aren't looking into 3rd parties where coporate interest hasn't taken over.
|
|
Thank you, I have been screaming that in my head ever since his name was brought up. Not that McCain is any better, aren't most of his policy advisors former lobbyists? I still can't believe that people take what Obama or McCain say seriously and aren't looking into 3rd parties where coporate interest hasn't taken over.
That's what I'm doing...
Here is my question? Why should we trust Obama with our economy when his chief advisors are the people who ran the economy into the ground, like the former head of Lehman Brothers, and the former head of Freddy Mac? Isn't the left telling us it was their poor decisions that put us where we are today?Thank you, I have been screaming that in my head ever since his name was brought up. Not that McCain is any better, aren't most of his policy advisors former lobbyists? I still can't believe that people take what Obama or McCain say seriously and aren't looking into 3rd parties where coporate interest hasn't taken over.
But why waste my vote on a 3rd party candidate that doesn't have a chance? All Barr is going to do is take away votes from McCain and allow Obama to win, just as Nader took votes away from Kerry and allowed Bush to win.
As far as raising taxes, it has been shown that lowering taxes leads to more revenue for the government.
No. It's been shown that, theoretically, it can. That's not the same as does.
The reason is that people are willing to spend more money, create more jobs, and therefore there is more money in the system.
Rich people are generally not going to be incentivized by yet more disposable income. However, you'll notice that Obama wants to cut taxes on the majority of Americans (i.e. the ones who could contribute more.)
Ronald Reagan understood this, and a decade later we got the economy of the 1990's. Bill Clinton raised taxes and a decade later we have the economy we have today. During the Reagan administration, we went through several economic periods like we have today, that could be traced back to the economic policies of the 1970's of Nixion, Ford, and Carter. Here is my question? Why should we trust Obama with our economy when his chief advisors are the people who ran the economy into the ground, like the former head of Lehman Brothers, and the former head of Freddy Mac? Isn't the left telling us it was their poor decisions that put us where we are today?
I realize that economic changes don't happen overnight, but giving Reagan credit for things that happened a decade after he left office is laughable. Even H.W. Bush called Reagan's policies voodoo economics. (And he was the one left holding the bag the clean up Reagan's record deficits.)
Similarly, it's crazy to lay all the blame for our current situation on Clinton and none on Bush Junior, what with an expensive foreign war, record deficits, and doing nothing at all to slow down America's reliance on foreign oil and chinese goods.You might like to check out the article here. It looks at economic statistics like inflation, unemployment, growth, and government spending under various presidents. It's from Slate, which is part of the Washington Post.
|
|
But why waste my vote on a 3rd party candidate that doesn't have a chance? All Barr is going to do is take away votes from McCain and allow Obama to win, just as Nader took votes away from Kerry and allowed Bush to win.
If a third party gets enough votes, it can get federal funding and participate in the debates. I for one am sick of the chokehold the two parties have on politics.
|
|
You might like to check out the article here. It looks at economic statistics like inflation, unemployment, growth, and government spending under various presidents. It's from...
By it's own admission, Slate is a left-wing liberal publication who supports Democrats over Republicans. The author of the article is also the former editor of The New Republic which ran a cover story on Obama which presented him using messianic imagery. This is hardly an unbiased source for information. If you want an unbiased look at the numbers, and you can stand the mind numbing tedum, I would suggest you go straight to the Bureau of Labor Statistics website.
|
|
You might like to check out the article here. It looks at economic statistics like inflation, unemployment, growth, and government spending under various presidents.
Interesting...
If a third party gets enough votes, it can get federal funding and participate in the debates. I for one am sick of the chokehold the two parties have on politics.
That's why I support an instant-runoff system for elections. That way you would not be left with the choice between perpetuating the two-party system or allowing a Nader-type election swing. (Similarly, I'm opposed to the Electoral College, since it leads to strategic voting and campaigning in a way that insures that the map rarely changes.)
Of course, neither major party will allow instant runoffs, and there's always more 'important' things to worry about than fixing the electoral college.
So, umm, vote Byers in 2020. I'll fix it right up.
|
|
You might like to check out the article here. It looks at economic statistics like inflation, unemployment, growth, and government spending under various presidents.Interesting...
Here is what I found in my research. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, since the Democrats took control of Congress, promising to help fix unemployment it has gone up 1%. Unemployment also went up from 2000 to 2002 when they had control of the Senate. However, from 2002 to 2006 when the Republicans were in control on The Hill unemployment went down almost 2%. Since Democrats took control of the Congress gas prices in the United States have gone up twice as fast as in the proceeding six years. According to Standards and Poors it has only been since 2006 that housing values have dropped. So truly the numbers don't lie, but magazine writers do.
By it's own admission, Slate is a left-wing liberal publication who supports Democrats over Republicans.
The numbers in the article are still accurate. You might disagree if lower military spending is 'good' or not, though, which would flip that category, for example.
Callous Jack for president. He can not be any worse than the other two.
Callous Jack for president. He can not be any worse than the other two.
Ain't that the truth.
If a third party gets enough votes, it can get federal funding and participate in the debates. I for one am sick of the chokehold the two parties have on politics.That's why I support an instant-runoff system for elections. That way you would not be left with the choice between perpetuating the two-party system or allowing a Nader-type election swing. (Similarly, I'm opposed to the Electoral College, since it leads to strategic voting and campaigning in a way that insures that the map rarely changes.)
Of course, neither major party will allow instant runoffs, and there's always more 'important' things to worry about than fixing the electoral college.
So, umm, vote Byers in 2020. I'll fix it right up.
I might vote for you. By then you might have become a Republican(LOL!). Before you say "no way", you have to remember when David Fryer and I were your age, we were liberal democrats as well.
|
|
By it's own admission, Slate is a left-wing liberal publication who supports Democrats over Republicans.
And the *numbers* in the report come from here;
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/Which is not so much a left-wing liberal publication, particularly given who writes that report (Presidentially appointed Chairman of the Presidentially-appointed Council of Economic Advisors, who, last I checked, weren't chosen for their liberal slant). You can see them here; http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/
And, even if the President *did* appoint a bunch of left-wing liberals to tell him what the numbers are, the numbers are the numbers. Also, neither 'left-wing' nor 'liberal' are actually insults that would immediately discredit someone's math, anymore than 'right-wing' or 'conservative' are.
If the idea is right, it doesn't matter who the messenger is. When McCain said that torture was wrong, I agreed with him. When he said that we shouldn't be bailing out Wall Street a few days back, I agreed with him. When Dick Cheney said that Iraq was going to turn into a quagmire and we should get out as soon as possible (back during Gulf War I), I agreed with him. Didn't matter what someone's party affiliation was. When they're right, they're right. Same with Ron Paul, who has said some things I very much disagree with, and some things I strongly agree with, meanwhile his own party calls him 'crazy' and dismisses *everything* he says (and calls anyone who agrees with anything they've dismissed 'zombies'), throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I might vote for you. By then you might have become a Republican(LOL!).
I can't see myself successfully getting a nomination under the Democrats either. I agree with them on many issues, but a party that old would just not get on board for some of the sweeping changes I'd have in mind. (How sweeping? I'd disband the Army for one thing.)
Ideally, I'd do something like found the Constitutional Party (assuming that name isn't taken.) It'd be easier to just create a new platform, and then steal voters from the major parties. (You get around decades of built up mistrust and hate. If no one has heard of you, they might actually listen to what you have to say instead of starting with the assumption that you are wrong.)
Of course, since I won't dedicate the next twelve years of my life to a long shot at fixing the system, probably nothing will come of it.
|
|
Here is what I found in my research. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, since the Democrats took control of Congress,
So, in this place you speak of, there are more Democratic Senators than Republican ones, and the 'Democrats control Congress?'
Neat. In the place I live in, there are 49 Democratic Senators, 49 Republican ones, and 2 Independents (one of whom, from Vermont, votes Democratic, the other of whom, from Connecticut, is currently on tour giving speeches for John McCain, and caucases with the Democracts, but then votes Republican).
The Democrats don't 'control' Congress, since a bill has to pass the Senate, which is split 50/50, to make it through Congress. It certainly is a popular talking point, to blame the Democrats for not being able to get 60 votes out of 49 people.
Apparently their magic is weak.
Here is what I found in my research. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, since the Democrats took control of Congress,So, in this place you speak of, there are more Democratic Senators than Republican ones, and the 'Democrats control Congress?'
Neat. In the place I live in, there are 49 Democratic Senators, 49 Republican ones, and 2 Independents (one of whom, from Vermont, votes Democratic, the other of whom, from Connecticut, is currently on tour giving speeches for John McCain, and caucases with the Democracts, but then votes Republican).
The Democrats don't 'control' Congress, since a bill has to pass the Senate, which is split 50/50, to make it through Congress. It certainly is a popular talking point, to blame the Democrats for not being able to get 60 votes out of 49 people.
Apparently their magic is weak.
True, but you're forgetting that the democrats are in control of all the committees and the money.
I'd disband the Army for one thing.)
I usually avoid political discussions like the plague. Srlsy. What does a poodle know about politics.
However, I am curious about this. Why would you disband the Army and how would you propose defending our nation?
As far as raising taxes, it has been shown that lowering taxes leads to more revenue for the government.No. It's been shown that, theoretically, it can. That's not the same as does.
The reason is that people are willing to spend more money, create more jobs, and therefore there is more money in the system.Rich people are generally not going to be incentivized by yet more disposable income. However, you'll notice that Obama wants to cut taxes on the majority of Americans (i.e. the ones who could contribute more.)
Ronald Reagan understood this, and a decade later we got the economy of the 1990's. Bill Clinton raised taxes and a decade later we have the economy we have today. During the Reagan administration, we went through several economic periods like we have today, that could be traced back to the economic policies of the 1970's of Nixion, Ford, and Carter. Here is my question? Why should we trust Obama with our economy when his chief advisors are the people who ran the economy into the ground, like the former head of Lehman Brothers, and the former head of Freddy Mac? Isn't the left telling us it was their poor decisions that put us where we are today?I realize that economic changes don't happen overnight, but giving Reagan credit for things that happened a decade after he left office is laughable. Even H.W. Bush called Reagan's policies voodoo economics. (And he was the one left holding the bag the clean up Reagan's record deficits.)
Similarly, it's crazy to lay all the blame for our current situation on Clinton and none on Bush Junior, what with an expensive foreign war, record deficits, and doing nothing at all to slow down America's reliance on foreign oil and chinese goods.You might like to check out the article here. It looks at economic statistics like inflation, unemployment, growth, and government spending under various presidents. It's from...
One thing you have to remember that Republicans tend to attack problems that end up a drag to our economy. Reagan had the cold war and Bush has terrorism. Going after these problems did not help our economy. Yet, I think they were worth it.
|
|
Neat. In the place I live in, there are 49 Democratic Senators, 49 Republican ones, and 2 Independents (one of whom, from Vermont, votes Democratic, the other of whom, from Connecticut, is currently on tour giving speeches for John McCain, and caucases with the Democracts, but then votes Republican).
Funny thing then that the Democrats claim to be the majority. If it was truly split 50/50 then the comitte chairmanships would be split 50/50 as well. So long as the Democrats claim the majority, they control the agenda, and therefore are in control of Congress.