Prove me wrong!
Obama isn't remotely close to being a socialist. Socialism is a dead issue in the world today, except perhaps in Cuba and Venezuela. The only issue is what regulations are needed and effective in preventing our market system from self-destructing as it nearly did two years ago thanks to the period of lax regulation starting with Reagan and ending under Bush II. Even the conservatives accept the need for greater regulation of the banking, mortgage and insurance industries.
Socialism isn't dead at all. Many European countries are social democracies.
Well that's a view I don't share with conservatives or anyone else. I also don't agree that a lack of regulation led to the economic meltdown. To the contrary, the meltdown was driven by regulation like the Community Reinvestment Act and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac excesses, and the total ineffectiveness of the SEC and the FED.
That's a great over-simplification. The most important single factor was the repeal of the Glass-Stegall Act which prohibited banks whose deposits are insured by the FDIC from becoming investment banks which trade for their own accounts with government-insured deposits. This had long been advocated by Republicans and it was passed under Clinton and signed by him on the advice of Robert Rubin, former CEO of Goldman and not vice-chairman of CitiGroup, and Larry Summers, big advocates of de-regulation along with Alan Greenspan. Greenspan has since recanted partially.
Also don't forget the fact that the SEC was woefully underfunded during the Bush years and couldn't investigate the fancy footwork of the investment banks.
Oh please!!! How many times did whistle blowers go to the SEC with EVIDENCE of Madoff ponzi scheme, and still they did nothing!!
Like most government agencies, you can keep giving them money and they'll just piss it away.
No, the problem is that they didn't have the money to pay people to investigate. The high powered accountants and lawyers don't join the SEC when they graduate because they'll be severely limited in their career and pay. Instead they go to work for the corporations that pay five or ten times as much.
There is no disputing what you say. At least Ralph admits something wasn't the Republican's fault, William has a problem understanding where to place fault.
Well yes I didn't want to get into all the details. I agree that had an impact, and that is precisely why those companies shouldn't have been bailed out!
By the way, some of these people you mentioned are serving in the current administration and some are being tapped to "fix" the financial industry!
don't you EVER make fun of my future wife EVER again!
Well she's not a socialist...I don't know... my dream date maybe?
She is an Alaskan Separatist, and needs to stay there.
What does Palin have to do with this?
HEY POPPA, hmmm. What is wrong with being a socialist, the idea of socialism is about equality, whether it is really achievable or not is of course the question. I am a socialist, I believe in its ideals, the manner in which it is presented by LOGIC, but not in its impelmentation because it defies HUMAN logic, we are not at ALL equal, "To each according to his ability" -- but we should do everything with compassion.
OBAMAs health care make sense to me, according to the news and things in the Internet stuff etc. the effect of a law is years in the making, and history is of course waiting to write its own version of history except of course those who are trying to meddle with history -- Reinventing the sense of being and becoming!
There will always be disgruntled people, questions and this is good in democracy
Europe is always first in terms of social development, socialism in Denmark, UK and others -- even industrialization started in Europe, learned their lessons but America is just starting to be socialized, looked, analyzed debate, wait and listen because thats all we can do -- gotta respect the people and lawmakers who signed and voted these people in the ofice. Who knows socialism will work here, American version of socialiam, in seach for a better world for all of us, socialism and its methods and ways find its ways here in the US. Obama maybe even doesnt know that we are labeling his health care as a "socialist" agenda etc. In search for whats going to work and not, everybody is at it!
The price of searching for whats going to work or not is not that easy!
The results of all of these, we should be dead by then..before we know ---
We should not be so arrogant to think that WE ARE RIGHT and they are all wrong!
POPPA< you are not arrogant hehe! I like you and your POSTS always!
The right wingers call Obama a socialist and the left wingers call him a tool of corporate America. That must mean he's squarely in the middle, i.e., a moderate Democrat.
Why not look at his actions and decide for yourself? There are specific definitions for these terms so it isn't all that hard to figure out.
I campaigned for Obama, and I've been watching his every move. I haven't seen anything that indicates he's a socialist. Of course that word doesn't have a precise definition, especially on Internet discussion forums. He certainly isn't advocating anything that fits the definition of socialism that I learned in economics class. One of my professors was Alfred Kahn who persuaded Jimmy Carter to de-regulate the airlines and trucking industries.
He himself should be the one to prove it wrong.
Which is why he has shown NO accountability at all in that regard and other regards.
Your desperation grows with every post. You have to provide some evidence of your absurd statement before we even get into proving it wrong. Your link doesn't even begin to do that.
It's the equivalent of someone saying Glenn Beck is a pedophile, prove it wrong. You can't come up with proof that Glenn isn't a pedophile, so he must be one.
How's it feel to take your marching orders from a pedophile?
Well at least I posted a link that makes the case. All I have from you is your opinion. Do you have a link that supports your claim about Beck?
What I find amazing is how those on the left just ignore this stuff, but if this was about bush none of you would ever let it go! It would be in every paper, on every blog, there'd be demands for Congressional investigations and calls for impeachment!
But no, not Obama, it can't possibly be true! Ignorance is bliss.
At least he has an opinion that is his, and thoughts of his own, something that while I may disagree with, I respect.
I would not be proving YOU wrong, I'd be proving someone else wrong. Added to which, unlike you, socialism does not necessarily equate an insult, so there's nothing to disprove.
Oh I see, so his opinion is his alone and he was the first to have that opinion, as is yours. So it's not possible to share an opinion because if you do, well, then, you don't deserve respect, and obviously you can't have any thoughts of your own.
I wonder, are Obama's opinions his and his alone, or does he share any with say, Mao?
I never said socialism was an insult, it's a philosophy and one that Obama, and most of the Democrats seem to share. For some reason though they are afraid to admit it. I wonder why? Any original thoughts or unshared opinions on this matter would be greatly appreciated.
And yet you continually disprove that cliche' with your anger.
Anger? I'm not angry! These people are angry!
You begin each day with a hateful rant. You are full of anger. Prove me wrong.
Where is my hateful "rant" of today? Maybe you could post the link.
Good one! As usual you make many statements, many claims but you can never back them up. Why? Because they are not the truth. Apparently you don't care about the truth, only your ideology.
Oh was that too hateful? I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. Sometimes I'm just such a cyber bully!
Bush was well liked when he took office. AND was still well liked until they started making a case to invade Iraq. Then SOME people started to question his actions. Mostly liberals as you like to call them. It was only his and his cronies actions from that time on that began to alter peoples feelings towards him. I personally did'nt trust him from the start. And over a period of 8 years, Bush dug his own grave. Now Obama on the other hand, has NOT invaded another country unjustly, nor planned on it. Even if his methods prove to be wrong, which I don't think they will, his motive has been to make things easier for American citizens. Not the democratic party (that should be obvious) not corporate America, not foreign interests, Americans. Yet noone on the right is even willing to look at the good he's trying to do. They are more interested in defending the actions of a warmonger who put money interests in front of thiers. I don't get it!
Not for nothing but Obama is still prosecuting war. Now I wasn't a big fan of Bush, I actually never voted for him and I sure didn't want to go to war with Iraq. I really thought that was dumb. I absolutely HATE the Patriot Act, even the name of that laws disgusts me, yet Obama voted for every time and extended it and strengthened it!
You talk about Obama's motives, well, I don't know what's in the man's heart. Certainly he seems like a nice guy and he does like basketball and beer, two thing I quite enjoy as well, but that doesn't mean that he has good intentions or bad. He has managed to break nearly every one of his campaign promises.
You say no one is willing to look at the good he's done. Well, I am and I'm still waiting for him to do something good. Higher taxes unsustainable spending and debt are bad things, bad for our economy, bad for our security, and bad for our future generations. I didn't like it when Bush did it and Obama has already surpassed in one year what Bush did in eight.
I understand where your comming from when you say you don't like those things. However, Obama inherited one of the worst economical recessions in our history. And like it or not, the war along WITH Bushs tax cuts and his policies(not his alone,Clinton too), put us in that position. And somtimes when you find yourself in that type of position, you HAVE to spend money to save your ass. The war we are in, IS where the threat to us exists. So I would call that a just war. If given time for his policies to takes affect I believe Obama will turn our ecomomy around and deal with Afganistan in a long term correct method. GIVE HIM A CHANCE!
Bush was hated by the left when he took office. They said; he stole the election. As he brought unemployment down, the hate slowed. With the war, he hate slowed more. Then the left said he stole the election again, but with unemployment at 4.5 % things got quieter.
When the Democrat's took control of Congress the HATE got very loud.
One week after 9/11 when Bush was standing with his arm around the fireman, everyone(including me) thought maybe this guy will be alright. He did'nt take very long to dispell that thought. As for the election, political manuevering and manipulation of the faulty electorial system DID steal the election for BUSH. After 9/11 people were willing to give him the benifit of the doubt, but NOOOOOOO. He and his cronies had to go pursue thier own agenda. Also, when a president emplements something, good or bad, it takes time for the effects to transpire. Bush's low level of unemployment was the work of Clinton, NOT Bush!
Nothing like what's been stirred up lately.
I can confirm that Glenn Beck touched me...
I was 20 at the time, so I can't confirm he is a pedophile...
but I still felt uncomfortable.
But you can't prove that he's not a pedophile can you? According to the op, Beck is therefore a pedophile.
You on the other hand.........
If you are truly GREEK you would keep your..........mouth shut!
Ron, You are asking Brenda to behave in a rational way.... What are you smoking?
We can't prove you aren't a liberal plant, a pedophile, Elvis, a conservative inciting other conservatives to speak up, a gardener, an actor, a fraud. We can't prove any of that.
But your words, just words, and your actions, just actions, are the way you relay to others who you are. Obama has shown you who he is if you just listen to his words, and watch him in action, and can get past the love. Here's a great old example of the current methodology and mind set of liberals hard at work setting the stage for socialism in the USA and blinded Americans sucking it up:
"Old left hand hate is down for the count,” 1955, Robert Mitchum, Night of the Hunter.
"I feel clean now, my whole body is just a quivering with cleanness". Shelley Winters says after being a fed a lie by the charismatic preacher, Mitchum.
Mitchum tells her, "that money is at the bottom of the river, wrapped around a 12 pound cobblestone." That’s about what we’ll be told after tax revenues are extracted from the so-called wealthy and a small portion redistributed to the so-called poor, but the piggy bank still comes up short.
The tit of capitalism will run dry, and the so-called poor will start adding to the bank so future Presidents can have Waygu beef and Champagne and the health care they choose. We have a middle class now, we won’t under the current socialistic agenda.
You know, 20 years ago, Obama would have been accused of being a communist and not a socialist.
I think the divide between Republicans and Democrats is getting smaller
The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals believe the power of capitalism can be molded to benefit everyone and conservatives want it to be molded to suit only them.
And God help a liberal with a little sympathy for his fellow creatures. The Tea Party will be a-linchin'.
"Molded"??? Don't you mean "forced"? And how is it that conservatives would only benefit by a free market? I mean, how does one even craft legislation that excludes liberals?
Hollywood is full of liberals and it seems to me they're doing pretty good for themselves. Maybe we should limit their pay since they don't really do anything productive for society and they have a huge, huge carbon footprint!
Oh yes we all know how liberals are so charitable, and conservatives, not so much!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl … l_giv.html
"The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals believe the power of capitalism can be molded to benefit everyone and conservatives want it to be molded to suit only them.
And God help a liberal with a little sympathy for his fellow creatures. The Tea Party will be a-linchin'."
Chavez in Venezuela receives more influence from the example of Simon Bolivar than "socialism"....prove me wrong!
I'm glad that we have to go to a GOP page with Sarah Palin's face on it in order to find the "truth" about Obama....
My favorite part of this article was concerning "Communist Socialist Cuba."
To me, a lithmus test of idiocy has to do with how people perceive this Caribbean island...
gopusa wins the prize for biggest load of hot air so far for 2010...
Based off that specific line in the site this thread was centered on, I believe the Republican party to be increasingly Fascist....prove me wrong!
It's difficult to debate with you. Did you try to convert me on one of my Hubs?
"Chavez in Venezuela receives more influence from the example of Simon Bolivar than "socialism"....prove me wrong!"
What a load of illogical BS. He's also more influenced by hydrogen and oxygen....
Incoherence is not a virtue, Poppa. Neither are non sequiturs. Just picking out one phrase that seems to make some sense:
'Oh yes we all know how liberals are so charitable, and conservatives, not so much'
Fighting for the right of people to be without access to health care is about as uncharitable as I can imagine.
I don't know, I was responding to your premise so if my response was incoherent, well maybe that says something about the original statement.
As far as fighting for a person's right to free choice being uncharitable, I'm afraid I have to disagree. Would it be charitable to limit a woman's right to chose?
I agree, Will, people DO have the right to be without health care, as you wrote.
I have been there at different times in my life, and I can tell you I have spent far less by being "self-insured" than I have spent on useless health insurance. ($1200 a month so that I can avoid a twice-a-year doctor's fee of $70? Get real!)
The only logical reason for having health insurance is in case of drastic health problems - which will inevitably come, I know. But that's no reason for the monstrosity that the President and Congress are forcing on the American people. It is NOT better to do just anything, when something needs to be done. It is best to do the right thing, and the health care overhaul bill is NOT it.
ZOMG Socialists! I'm so scared!
Stop driving on the interstate if you don't like socialism. And stop buying things from grocery stores cause 99.9% of that stuff was trucked in on the interstate.
Get your kids out of the public schools, and don't ever go back to the library.
And um, stop using the internet, since it was created by the government. With tax money.
Oh yeah, and better take Mamaw and Papaw off of Medicare. I'm sure they'll be fine without it.
No the government didn't invent the Internet. Roads are a power specifically granted to government(article 1 section 7) and the collection of taxes to build and maintain them is a legitimate power and function of government (article 1 section 1).
His actions show him to be a socialist.
Learn what actions the different forms of government take and it will be clear to you.
Socialism isn't a form of government. It's an economic system.
Hey William I have not seen you for awhile.
Yes that requires the use of force by government to carry it out.
I agree that if a capitalist's pay and bonuses ought to be limited, then so should everyone else's (as suggested somewhat in one of PoppaBlues' comments); including, maybe especially, movie actors, sports figures, Oprah, and ALL politicians!! [I'm not in favor of this, you understand, just in favor of fairness.]
The best way to accomplish limitations on compensation is by closing the tax loopholes and making the income tax more progressive.
I am not in favor of limitations on compensation, unless they are applied fairly across the board. Some people seem to think that earning millions by creating jobs for other people is somehow sinful, but earning millions for entertaining other people is a virtue. Huh?
Danny...there is no "chance giving" from the likes of Poppa and others....as for pointing out the 8 years of garbage that came before....these folks have "forgotten" all about it....
This is what I like about these anti-Obama threads so much....where were the likes of Poppa and Brenda during the reign of W. and Cheney?
And now they wish to discuss "constitutionality" and "socialism".....
How about standing up against people who openly lie to the American people ("we need to invade Iraq to make America safer")?
Beyond this, while Bush was running for President in 99 he gave an interesting speech....back then we had a budget surplus....and instead of holding on to it, or reinvesting it into projects that would enable a stronger nation, Bush pushed for "redistribution"...which was handed out to the wealthiest Americans during a period of time when expenditures, based on warmongering were rising......and when federal mandates (no child left behind act) put more and more strain on local and state governments...
Federal government mandates on education...is this not socialism?
This speech is on a hub a wrote about the "incompetance of Obama"...or rather, the true idiocy of Bush...
Poppa, do you agree with this redistribution of wealth?
It's good to see you again William.....
Well I wasn't here on Hubpages when Bush was president, at least not in the forums much. Had I been here you would have heard me rail against the Iraq war, his use of signing statements, the Patriot Act, and his uncontrolled spending.
No I'm not a fan of redistribution of wealth of any kind, though I realize the founders preferred a "progressive" form of tax. I have recently come to believe that "public education" is a total failure! The USA is losing ground in that department in comparison to the rest of the world. Studies have shown home schooled kids to outperform public schooled kids on standardized tests by 15-30 points. I also think it's evil to levy a tax on property, especially to pay for a sub-standard education. These taxes are sinister because it has the effect of the government having an ownership interest in your property, essentially making you a slave.
Redistribution since Reagan has been going from the poor and middle class to the rich in case you hadn't noticed, not the other way around. Income disparity has been increasing to the point where many people may lose their faith in our democratic, capitalist market system.
That's the free market! When you shop for a job, all things being equal, do you take the one that offers you the most money, or do you decide what is a fair price for you labor and refuse to take any more?
I agree the disparity of wages between the CEOs and the common assembler has really gotten out of whack, but it is within the power of the markets to reverse that. The shareholders can complain, and vote their proxy, customers can boycott and write letters, workers to can complain and so can unions. Eventually this can be brought into balance.
The markets have only allowed the disparity to increase, because the system is rigged by the CEOs themselves.
Have you ever known top CEO's to make uch a claim? I have, and I disagree with you. Any company can play with their stock, but it ends there.
The government statistics get revised all the time. Hoe about new new figures on defecit and GDP?
Harvey, I could cite chapter and verse about CEOs whose bonuses and options depended on the performance of their companies' stock. What did they do--they cooked the books to make the stock go up, and when that didn't work they just backdated their options or tore them up and issued new ones. The directors who were supposed to be watching the store, i.e., protecting the interests of the shareholders, were a bunch of buddies hand picked by the CEO. Shareholder democracy is a myth for the most part. Here's one of the worst examples--United Health Care--aside from Enron.
http://hubpages.com/hub/Leeches_Contrib … Care_Costs
Wait. What do any of the actions you listed above have to do with the market, except maybe boycotts?
The market (the free exchange of goods and services) is not self correcting. Workers can't complain if they have no other option. Unions can't complain if they are not supported by the law. And shareholders won't vote against their own best interest - they are shareholders because they want to make a profit, not because they want to make the company run more responsibly.
A completely unregulated free market, by itself, inevitably leads to more concentration of wealth because success allows reinvestment. The more successful you are in the market, the more powerful you are, and if there are no regulations there would be no stopping the rich from owning everything.
This system has been tried before. It's called feudalism. You might get a taste of it in your lifetime if you let the corporations continue to dictate your beliefs.
Success also leads to competition, others looking to get a piece of the action. And shareholders will complain if compensation of executives affects the bottom line, or if they are paid exorbitantly and produce lack luster results.
I don't care about the rich getting richer. I don't care what they own, I only want to be able to keep what I've earned and what I own, not to pay tribute to the government on my property.
Success also leads to competition? How?
You don't care what the rich own? Would you care if one man owned all the major media in the US? What if he owned a third of it? What if he had a definite political viewpoint and wasn't afraid to use his media holdings to propagate that view?
Look up Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes. Also check out Silvio Berlusconi.
Look up Coke and Pepsi, Chrysler, GM, Ford, Toyota, Microsoft< Apple, Google etc...etc...
I'm less afraid of Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes and Silvio Berlusconi owning media than I am the government!
"A completely unregulated free market, by itself, inevitably leads to more concentration of wealth because success allows reinvestment. The more successful you are in the market, the more powerful you are, and if there are no regulations there would be no stopping the rich from owning everything."
Gee, I suppose the USA must have been doomed from the very start. All those Big Macs people think these days is their right to buy, rather than a days worth of health care or a weeks worth of red beans, which I grew up on, is the fault of our capitalistic system. The really successful folks can buy a steak every day instead of a Big Mac, and it just ain't fair to take the Big Mac away, as there's no stopping the rich from eating everything.
Is that why the Back and Hispanic middle-classes have grown?
Public education is a failure because failure is the desired outcome....
It is strange how our system was "the best" (as stated by so many)..prior to desegregation.. It is interesting how UCLA was free admission....when it was primarily a white campus...
Private schooling, in the way we perceive it today, in my mind, is largely an escape mechanism for many who don't want "liberal" ideas like ethnic mingling and culture mixing going on....
Before Mexican American youth were being bussed out of the inner-city of Los Angeles...into the then, mostly white suburbs of the San Fernando Valley.... But even most of them have run off to the Santa Clarita developments....and when I was working as a school photographer...working fram Malibu and Santa Clarita to Martin Luther King Jr. Middle School downtown I was able to see clearly the economic/ethnic line...
While Malibu's schools are public....you have to have the "private education" financial status to live within its zone....
I am glad that it seems you stand against abuse of power....but, in my mind, the best precedent that we can send as a people to those who use our power...is to prosecute Bush and Cheney on war crimes...on lying to the American people..of obstruction of justice....push for something high, and set some kind of example...
If they can get away with what they pulled, there is no hope of finding justice against political leaders..and the corrupt forces that can be enabling them...at least this is my view..
The push against Obama, in my mind, is exaggerated....and people like Bush and Cheney and their supporters benefit from this dischord....I listened to Cheney's speech at the Tea Party Convention...their support for this man alone tells me that I want them no where near political office.....their cheers for him.....how sad that there are people out there that are so ignorant...
If you want to look at socialism in the United States, I would like to proffer corporate-built Los Angeles...and see how socialism relates...
What will you find?
"Public education is a failure because failure is the desired outcome...."
Public education is a failure (to the extent that it actually is) because it is public.
Our higher education system is by far the best in the world and it is not free and compulsory, and is based on a competitive model.
".....their cheers for him.....how sad that there are people out there that are so ignorant..."
Everyone who doesn't agree with you is "ignorant" huh? Is that the professors told you to think? Makes you feel good, doesn't it?
"...is to prosecute Bush and Cheney on war crimes..."
Yeah, one little problem with that...
...despite all the emoting from the hysterical left they didn't commit any 'war crimes'
Yay!!! I work for a socialist government!!! I'm so proud!!
Socialism is an economic system. The basis of socialism is that assets are held and controlled by the people.
That is all. What are you so scared about?
There are many democracies in the world that function wonderfully and are quite free, with wealthy, healthy, and well educated populations, that are quite socialist. Norway is a prime example.
Socialism does not equal totalitarianism. Soviet Russia was not a socialist system, since everything was owned by the Communist Party, not by the people.
The fact that stewardship of the roads system is written into the constitution is evidence that the founders knew that there are some things which are done better by the public. The army is another system which must be publicly owned.
Any asset which is owned and administered by a democratic government is socialistic. All modern industrialized nations have a combination of socialism and free enterprise.
You should be less worried about public administration of healthcare and roads and libraries and more worried about the growth of private and corporate power.
Socialism is NOT an Economic system. It is an ideology.
Government is an altruistic ideology failing it's people.
MIT Professor and co-author of 13 Bankers
Posted: March 26, 2010 07:21 AM
BIO Become a Fan
Get Email Alerts Bloggers' Index
Senator: Which Part Of 'Too Big To Fail' Do You Not Understand?
What's Your Reaction:
digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - stumble reddit del.ico.us
Read More: Citigroup , Financial Crisis , Financial Reform , Kaufman , Simon Johnson , Ted Kaufman , The Financial Fix , Too Big To Fail , Wall Street Crisis , Business News
When a company wants to fend off a hostile takeover, its board may seek to put in place so-called "poison pill" defenses - i.e., measures that will make the firm less desirable if purchased, but which ideally will not encumber its operations if it stays independent.
Large complex cross-border financial institutions run with exactly such a structure in place, but it has the effect of making it very expensive for the government to takeover or shut down such firms, i.e., to push them into any form of bankruptcy.
To understand this more clearly you can,
1. Look at the situation of Citigroup today, or
2. Read this new speech by Senator Ted Kaufman.
The Citigroup situation is simple. They would like to downsize slightly, and are under some pressure to do so. It is hard to sell assets at a decent price in this environment, so why don't they just spin off companies - e.g., quickly create five companies in which each original shareholder gets a commensurate stake?
The answer is that Citi's debt is generally cross-guaranteed across various parts of the company. US and foreign creditors have a claim on the whole thing, more or less (including the international parts), and you can't break it apart without upsetting them. The cross-border dimensions make everything that much more knotty.
Senator Kaufman explains what this means - essentially the "resolution authority" proposed in the Dodd legislation is meaningless. How would any administration put a huge bank into any kind of "resolution" (a FDIC-type bank closure, scaled up to big banks) when it knows that doing so would trigger default across all the complex pieces of this multinational empire?
You could do it if you are willing to accept the costs - and if you understand there are big drawbacks to providing an unconditional bailout of the 2009 variety. But will a future administration be willing to take that decision? The Obama administration was not - and big finance will only become bigger and more complex as we move forward.
If you look into the eyes of the decision-makers from Spring 2009, they honestly believe that taking over Citi or Bank of America would have caused greater financial trouble and a worse recession. You can argue about their true motivation all you want; this is irrelevant. The point is that the structures in place last year remain unchanged today. If a megabank shut-down under pressure was impossible for our policymakers last year, how exactly will the situation change after the Dodd bill passes - remembering that our current policymakers or a close facsimile will run this country for the indefinite future?
Senator Kaufman is strong too on what this all means. By all accounts, this Senator is not a person who came to the boom-bust-bailout debate with strong preconceived notions, just someone who has listened carefully to the arguments on all sides. And, unlike most politicians, this Senator does not need to raise money.
Banks that are "too big to fail" are simply too big. Making them smaller may not be sufficient to prevent major crises in the future - Senator Kaufman sensibly also supports a long list of related reforms, including for derivatives markets (see his other speeches on this topic: first, second) - but rolling back our biggest and most dangerous banks certainly is necessary. And there is simply no evidence that banks on today's modern scale convey any benefits to society.
Massive banks cannot be controlled, at least not in the US context; we are not Canada. "Smart regulation" in this context is an oxymoron. Our regulators have been captured by the ideology of finance for 20 years; the big banks industry are not about to let them out on parole now.
For a long while, the Obama administration insisted that size caps for banks were not on the table. Then, in January, the president himself announced the Volcker Rules - which include a size cap for banks. We've argued this cap should be even tighter - big banks can get smaller in an orderly fashion and regulators can help - but still any cap would be a step in the right direction.
Yet there is no size cap in Senator Dodd's bill.
Given that this White House has shown it can achieve considerable things, when it applies itself, why not pursue the Volcker Rules in full?
The White House is clearly not afraid of the business lobby - Deputy Secretary Neal Wolin took on the Chamber of Commerce this week regarding the Consumer Protection Agency for Financial Products; his tone was strong and his arguments were telling.
Yet the White House, Senator Dodd, and perhaps even Barney Frank are all stuck on one issue - they can't contemplate making our biggest banks smaller (or even limiting their size).
It's as if a very clever political poisoned pill has been put into place. If you act against the big banks they will .... What exactly? Threaten to prolong the recession? Help your opponents get elected? Run ads against everything you believe in?
Whatever the reason, write it down and think about it. How do you feel about a small set of big financial firms having this kind of power? How is that good for the rest of the business community, let alone regular citizens and our democracy?
This administration is perfectly capable of taking on the big banks. All that is missing is a little clarity of thought and a fair amount of political courage. Or they can just call up Senator Kaufman.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simon-joh … 14293.html
Yes the gov. did invent the Internet. My husband worked with DARPA during that time period. He is one of the electrical engineers that designed the Internet switching software in the early 1980's, that allowed their software to run on telephone lines, that were provided by Tandy Computers, which then was bought out by MCI/Sprint back then. He sold his rights to the software, and at the age of 26 was worth $11,000,000.00 dollars. The government paid my husband for his work. The government pays him still. You see, they wanted a way that all their communications lines could be tied up into one network. That way Washington DC, could channel an IPS address to a submarine in the Baltic sea, that then sent orders to the Marines in San Diego. Instantly.
They are now working on something new..., when it is made to the public. I'm sure I will write something like this again. It is really cool.
The new company processing this work is Anagran, out of San Fran, along with Microsoft and HP.
The conceptual idea of the Internet, was founded by Larry Roberts. Anagran is Larry Roberts company. My husband has worked with Larry since 1979.
Yeah sure if you consider the linking of DOD computers the "internet".
You have no idea. Thus, I didn't think you would.
Didn't you just claim you husband invented the internet and sold it to the governemnt?
So let's see, you husband created the Internet
Then Al Gore created the Internet
But he was in the government
so he hired your husband to take credit for it
so he could say the government invented the internet?>>
I'm so confused!
IntEvo - Do you even know what "thus" means? "Thus," I thought you didn't.
"Used to introduce a logical conclusion." Any thing else? Or is it just your style to offer up nothing, but uneducated opinions? I thought so.
You are saying that your "logical conclusion" to your own statement "You have no idea," is "I didn't think you would"? That's circular logic, at best. Scarcely even that.
The two statements might be parallel to or even independent of one another, but the second is hardly the logical result of the first. Stating your previous post with dynamically equivalent language, one might say, "You have no idea. Consequently, I didn't think you would."
Other statements might be the consequence of the statement "You have no idea." Other statements might lead to the logical conclusion "I didn't think you would." But your two statements are not logically related as deriving from or leading to one another. That's a matter of logic, thus I wouldn't expect it to be in your area of expertise.
oh snap.. reminds me of my LSAT writing days
If a train full of Republicans is traveling at 50 mph toward the teabaggers convention, and a train full of teabaggers is traveling towards the Republicans headquarters at 20kmph, at what point do they become confused and just call the whole thing off?
When they pass each other on the way to the other location.
HaHa. Yes, I would have to say they might become confued on about page 2299 of the Health Care Overhaul bill. Have any Democrats even read it at all?
If the two parties were to merge, would they be called the Teabaglicans?
Please list the countries that socialism is working well. Forget England, Iceland, Spain, Greece and those having the same problems.
The INTERNET was never meant for public use. It was suppose to be for Government inter-agency communications.
You can't just leave us hanging like that!!!!!!
Poppa, I don't think you can convince socialists that there's something wrong with socialism.
Well there's nothing wrong with it, if that's what you like. I just think that individuals should be allowed to chose what system they want to live under. Socialist, Marxist government exist all over the place, but there is only ONE America. If you don't like the system of government here, why not go to a country with a system that you do like? Why FORCE me and others like me to live under YOUR idea of utopia?
That just doesn't seem fair to me, does it? Am I unreasonable in my thinking? Am I wrong to want to be free to decide for myself? To care for myself? To be responsible for myself? Is it unreasonable to ask those that want socialism to go elsewhere, where it is to their liking? I would never want to FORCE anyone into freedom if they didn't want it!
No Sab....it show's you have no clue what Bolivar stood for....
Fighting an illegal war is a crime Sab.....lying in front of the American people.....sending troops to their deaths, and causing the death, detainment/torture of Iraqis.....
Absolutely there are war crimes capable of being charged....Again..with eye slits so small on that mask...it can be hard to see....
I'm glad to see, however, that you defend Bush and Cheney...this says a lot...
"....it show's you have no clue what Bolivar stood for...."
Oh boy, you got a new book out from the library! Now we can watch you try to shoehorn Bolivar into every single topic that comes up for the next few weeks.
Now, who is this Bo...Bo-li-var you speak of? Never heard of him either. You are truly a fountain of secret elite knowledge.
"Fighting an illegal war is a crime"
Well, thank goodness we didn't do that.
"....lying in front of the American people."
Good thing he didn't do that either.
....sending troops to their deaths, and causing the death, detainment of Iraqis....."
Those things are not illegal.
"Absolutely there are war crimes capable of being charged...."
Nope. A small army of Washington lawyers smarter and more ambitious than you searched in vain for years to find any and couldn't. Sorry, hope that isn't too unbearably frustrating for you. Well, actually...
"I'm glad to see, however, that you defend Bush and Cheney..."
They don't need any defense by me, and certainly not from the likes of you.
Evidently Sab....at least in your case.... How arrogant you are to presume that everyone else here is as ignorant as you...
I don't believe this to be the case though...
What was a key theme to Bolivar's political philosophy Sab?
The library is closed...I need you, the self-proclaimed teacher, to tell me the answer....at least you claimed to be a teacher in post you made a while back...teach me!
Danny, thank you...
"How arrogant you are to presume that everyone else here is as ignorant as you..."
Oh no, I just recognize that no one has the top-secret elite knowledge that you do. How else could you keep getting gold star after gold star on your book reports?
...do you really not 'get it' yet?
You never sound like a person that has a military back ground, not that all are alike. You don't seem to recognize when you are in trouble.
I say the President LIES constantly. Brett Baer recently had a one on one interview with him on FOX. Obama cannot stand to be challenged. If he is he interrupts, and speaks for ten minutes.
When Baer tried to interject (he only had so much time) Obama kept telling him to stop interrupting. He interrupted because Obama continued to speak without answering the question.
He makes up figures all the time. What happened to the 300,000 jobs Green Energy would create? Spain has tried Green Energy, and has lost two jobs for everyone created.
Yes Sab...as long as executive privilege and "national security" keep truth from coming out....
I'm still waiting for that lesson on Bolivar....
"Yes Sab...as long as executive privilege and "national security" keep truth from coming out...."
Wait a minute... are you saying 'the truth' isn't 'out' but you know it anyway? Does your magic library card grant you special top-secret clearance? You just keep getting cooler and cooler.
"I'm still waiting for that lesson on Bolivar...."
Aw, gosh, gee you must be making that up. There can't never been no one by that name.
Sad Sab...really sad...
The relevance of Simon Bolivar in the development of Venezuela under the Presidency of Chavez?
Why do you insist on asking questions that no one but yourself could possibly know the answers to? We can't all have your top-secret, special elite book report knowledge. How many times do I have to tell you?
The wonderful thing about the internet is that anyone can learn about anything. Stop complaining about how stupid you are and do something about it.
Wait...you almost convinced me to take you seriously...it must be that sparkley eyes technique you must have picked up from "The Men Who Stare at Goats".......
You playing around with the New Earth Army Manual Sab?
You need to get a gasp of what socialism is before you try talking about it, Harry.
Also I have to point out that Norway is a capitalist democracy that uses a social democratic model for its tax system, education, health care etc. It is also a lot more productive per head of the population than more right wing countries like the UK and US.
How does it achieve that- given its pitiful natural resources merciless climate and tiny internal market for goods and services? Who knows? Maybe it is the huge investment that is made in individuals through the education systems, or the Scandinavian work ethic or the higher levels of social cohesion. It is a mystery.
GDP per capita by country:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_g … per-capita
Thanks for clarifying Will.
A word like "socialism" has many different meanings. Norway, whatever it is "officially", would be considered a full blown communist dictatorship by many of the right wing here in America. Labels and names don't mean much - if they did, North Korea really would be a democracy lol.
One thing I'd like to point out though: the right (that is, the libertarian right) and the left in America both have the same goal: economic equality. Libertarians think that giving individuals complete economic liberty would create economic equality, while socialists (at the extreme left end of the American political spectrum) simply believe that the economic power should be collectively managed.
Either system would be an utter failure if it was the only law of the land. Pure libertarianism leads to concentration of power, while pure socialism leads to centralization, bureaucracy and inefficiency.
The successful, modern industrialized nations have some combination of free markets with regulations and public services. If you think your system is the one true way you are living in fantasyland.
Just like to point out that torture was illegal when they engaged in it.
It is possible that Bush didn't know, since he said "America does not torture".... but Cheney sure as hell did.
And I hope you haven't forgotten how bad it was.
Wire-tapping was illegal then too...unless they went through FISA, remember? They didn't. They "just did it".
Unitary Executive that Cheney was pushing....hoping they would still be in power I guess...
The Patriot Act. I heard on a show once that they had been wanting to get this through for a long time..PNAC, that is. The neo-cons who ran our gvt. Well, the Congress said no way, it goes too far in removing liberties.
But, on the eve of the vote for the Patriot Act, the Bush administration switched bills--they put in the PNAC version, not the revised version. So, they got the PNAC bill through by subterfuge.
Karl Rove deleting 3 milion gvt. e-mails.
Outing a CIA agent.
And this is not even including the Iraq war, or 9/11.
So many by-the-book crimes. 35 articles of Impeachment.But worse, was the moral decay that set in. The horror we were responsible for--with no apologies. No admitting we might be wrong. With us or against us, dead or alive...
I'm sorry--the complaints you have about Obama are CHUMP CHANGE.
And you have a lot of nerve.
Deal with that rogue regime before you lay a hand anywhere else.
I'd say you don't need this list. I'd say "outing a CIA agent" just about tells you all you need to know.
You don't even understand Chicago Politics and how this administration works, and some of your points were incorrect
Republicans turned off by size of Obama's Package!
Republicans Turned Off by Size of Obama's Package
March 13, 2010, 3:52AM
See Tom Brandt, The Eastern Echo (Ypsilanti MI):
Observes Mr. Brandt, probingly: "Republicans are not sparing the rod when it comes to beating up on President Obama's economic stimulus package, but it's clear they are unable to raise their membership to withstand the newly found vigor of his congressional muscle.... The Obama package may not be the best piece of stimulative legislation ever to enter the Oval Office, but...it certainly beats any package Bush ever raised." [More]
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/ta … y-size.php
...ralph, you read the weirdest stuff !
Ha! How about this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQGBYY6H … er_embedde
Come on now; you can't compare them. They each came into different situations (neither good), and both tried to change things. Bush got unemployment to 4 1/2 percent, and things went well until Congress became Democratic. Obama has ultimate power, and the Stimulus Bill is a failure. Health-Care will try to finish off the country. Why are there things about education in a health-care bill?
Did you know Mexico now accepts some U.S. health insurance in border towns. Our people are going across the border to be treated with the same insurance.
My source is a doctor friend that just returned from Mexico. He is studying and teaching new cancer treatments.
And the question now is who is going to stop the Obama Agenda?
No need to pull Bush into any more Obama arguments. Bush is gone.
And yeah he may have sucked more than anyone ever, and he may have inflicted tons of damage to the country.
But the fact of the matter is Obama is making things worse.
The saddest thing about Bush is his mother was hospitalized today. It had to be George W. Buseh's fault.
I don't think either Bush I or Bush II ever got along very well with Barbara.
How many years are they married? If you really want to know, ask me. A friends mom is friends with her.
Haven't you heard that Barbara's a little hard to get along with, and that for a period hubbie had an Italian mistress stashed in NYC?
See page 209, under Sex and Drugs.
Here's the link to a Slate article on Kitty Kelly's book.
by cooldad7 months ago
My opinion is that Michael Jackson was a kid toucher, bottom line. I loved Jackson's music when I was a kid, but when he started bleaching his skin and wearing shin guards, I realized something wasn't quite right...
by Ron Montgomery8 years ago
Glenn Beck is losing sponsors (his life blood) at a rate that threatens his future as a TV/Radio ranter.33 and counting.
by ahorseback2 months ago
However anybody who passed ONE math class knows the answer . Unless you took liberal arts flower design and clay pottery class instead ?-Housing sales ,prices up-Unemployment down-Job creation up-Corporate...
by kirstenblog6 years ago
This time the socialist movement in America is targeting puppy mills. That's right ladies and gentlemen, big government wants to control those puppy mills. Your god given constitutional right to own a dog is at stake...
by Josak4 years ago
One of the greatest criticisms leveled at socialist and perceived socialist nations is their high taxes, usually reinforced with the example of France and it's high tax rates under a newly elected socialist...
by BJC8 years ago
The mainstream liberal media can't handle anyone who isn't politically correct. Yes, Beck gave his opinion and that is his right. People are treating Obama like he's God, he's not.How on earth can Obama...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.