Obama finally listening to the right people?

[kalm]

This should have happened as soon as Obama took office. How different would things be if Greenspan, Clinton and his Republican congress had not repealed Glass-Steagal in the first place? If banks are backed by our tax dollars they should be regulated as closely as other utilities.

Anyone pissed about the rising debt should agree with this 100%, but I wonder how the obstructionist conks will try and spin it?


The proposal from former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker basically involves restoring the spirit, if not the letter, of the 1930s Glass-Steagall banking regulations to prevent another Great Depression. It means separating the activities of commercial banks, entrusted with the deposits of ordinary folks, from the antics of the financial high rollers who are presumably dealing with wealthier and more knowledgeable investors. Commercial banks were intended to be heavily regulated and insured by the government to protect the savings of unwary citizens. Less risk-averse investors and the firms that handled their funds could fend for themselves, and if there was a collapse there would be no innocent victims requiring a government bailout.

Unfortunately, and despite the collapse of the banking system brought about by the shenanigans of the “too big to fail” conglomerates permitted in the new deregulatory environment, Obama has wasted the last year and trillions of taxpayer dollars bailing out Wall Street without putting significant new rules in place to govern reckless behavior. Only now, with the economic disaster bankrupting the government, has he turned to Volcker for leadership. And in testimony Tuesday before the Senate Banking Committee, Volcker offered the essential justification for needed banking legislation:

“The basic point is that there has been, and remains, a strong public interest in providing a `safety net’—in particular, deposit insurance and the provision of liquidity in emergencies—for commercial banks carrying out essential services. There is not, however, a similar rationale for public funds-taxpayer funds—protecting and supporting essentially proprietary and speculative activities.”

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/vol ... _20100202/

[CID1990]

Anyone pissed about the rising debt should agree with this 100%, but I wonder how the obstructionist conks will try and spin it?


http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/vol ... _20100202/

Brilliant.

Front loading your post with an opinionated prediction about opposition does not automatically make you right, Kalm.

[Baldy]

Anyone pissed about the rising debt should agree with this 100%, but I wonder how the obstructionist conks will try and spin it?


http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/vol ... _20100202/

Brilliant.

Front loading your post with an opinionated prediction about opposition does not automatically make you right, Kalm.

Exactly

Especially considering that the article was written by a member of the extreme far left lunatic fringe.

[Grizalltheway]

So did either of you refute the point, at all?

[Wedgebuster]

Went into our "formally sound" local bank last June to ask about a rather small line of credit. Keep in mind folks, at the time I had no mortgage, no car loans, and no credit card debt. Also had damn little cash.

I was looking for a real cheap rate, so that's why I went to see "my banker" He asked, what do you need the line of credit for? I lied, of course by saying "for business expansion." Now, it was true I was expanding my business, but I did not need any loans to do so, what I really wanted to do was purchase The Mountain Hunting Retreat.

What he told me was, no, you do not need a line of credit for business purposes, you need a line of credit for personal reasons.

I said, OK whatever, and got the line of credit, unsecured at 5%.

Anybody see anything strange about this?

[kalm]

Anyone pissed about the rising debt should agree with this 100%, but I wonder how the obstructionist conks will try and spin it?


http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/vol ... _20100202/

Brilliant.

Front loading your post with an opinionated prediction about opposition does not automatically make you right, Kalm.

Lighten up you big baby, I hope I'm wrong about the Republicans. .

I was trying to incite a debate with those who believe that all government intervention is bad, that we still need less regulation than more, that free market solutions are always in the best interests of the country, that Freddie and Fannie, and the CRA are the primary if not only reasons for the economic collapse.

As I stated, Clinton signed Graham-Leach-Bliley, and as I think you've correctly pointed out before, government intervention - like the CRA - can sometimes have unintended consequences. So I'm well aware of both sides. But Glass-Steagal was in place for 60 years and did a nice job of preventing too big to fail banks.

If you noticed in the article McCain is co-sponsoring a bill along these lines, and I'm hopeful more Republicans will join him. But if they do, they will be contradicting much of their party's own rhetoric. They will be be cornered between agreeing with Obama on the correct side of an issue, and receiving a huge amount of flack from the right wingers.

And for those who oppose regulation, I'll be very curious to hear their justification. Kind of what GATW was pointing out.

[UNI88]

I believe I am considered a Conk and I'm also a fan of Volcker and agree that Obama should listen to his advice. So I can't give you the counterpoint you're looking for but I believe that refutes your belief that Conks are obstructionists.

And for the record, it is the unofficial job of the minority party to be obstructionists. It helps prevent bad and/or overly partisan legislation from being passed and is an extremely important part of what makes the system work. I think TTBF (where is he by the way) would agree with me on that one.

[kalm]

Brilliant.

Front loading your post with an opinionated prediction about opposition does not automatically make you right, Kalm.

Exactly

Especially considering that the article was written by a member of the extreme far left lunatic fringe.

Yep, Sheer is on the left, and also correct on this issue.

I read Charles Krauthammer every Saturday and find him occassionally making some valid points.

Your point?

(Gee I hope the offical conk response is better than yours)

[kalm]

I believe I am considered a Conk and I'm also a fan of Volcker and agree that Obama should listen to his advice. So I can't give you the counterpoint you're looking for but I believe that refutes your belief that Conks are obstructionists.

And for the record, it is the unofficial job of the minority party to be obstructionists. It helps prevent bad and/or overly partisan legislation from being passed and is an extremely important part of what makes the system work. I think TTBF (where is he by the way) would agree with me on that one.

You're conk-light and I agree with your second paragraph most of the time.

Both sides are obstructionist to a certain extent. We'll see where the knuckldragging-defeat-Obama-at-all-costs-wing of the Republican party comes out on this one. I'm thinking something along the lines of Baldy's substantive post.

[UNI88]

I believe I am considered a Conk and I'm also a fan of Volcker and agree that Obama should listen to his advice. So I can't give you the counterpoint you're looking for but I believe that refutes your belief that Conks are obstructionists.

And for the record, it is the unofficial job of the minority party to be obstructionists. It helps prevent bad and/or overly partisan legislation from being passed and is an extremely important part of what makes the system work. I think TTBF (where is he by the way) would agree with me on that one.

You're conk-light and I agree with your second paragraph most of the time.

Both sides are obstructionist to a certain extent. We'll see where the knuckldragging-defeat-Obama-at-all-costs-wing of the Republican party comes out on this one. I'm thinking something along the lines of Baldy's substantive post.

Actually, I'm a libertarian who has serious concerns about both parties. On the Repub side it's the knuckledragging ultra-conservative social nazi's you mentioned. On the Dem side it's their mirror opposite/twins, the ultra liberal, uber arrogant egg head intellectuals who think they're smarter than their constituents and can use the government to solve all of the world's problems like Pelosi and Reid.

[kalm]

You're conk-light and I agree with your second paragraph most of the time.

Both sides are obstructionist to a certain extent. We'll see where the knuckldragging-defeat-Obama-at-all-costs-wing of the Republican party comes out on this one. I'm thinking something along the lines of Baldy's substantive post.

Actually, I'm a libertarian who has serious concerns about both parties. On the Repub side it's the knuckledragging ultra-conservative social nazi's you mentioned. On the Dem side it's their mirror opposite/twins, the ultra liberal, uber arrogant egg head intellectuals who think they're smarter than their constituents and can use the government to solve all of the world's problems like Pelosi and Reid.

Having...difficulty...disagreeing...with...UNI88.

I too am quickly becoming a two party system obstuctionist.

[houndawg]

You're conk-light and I agree with your second paragraph most of the time.

Both sides are obstructionist to a certain extent. We'll see where the knuckldragging-defeat-Obama-at-all-costs-wing of the Republican party comes out on this one. I'm thinking something along the lines of Baldy's substantive post.

Actually, I'm a libertarian who has serious concerns about both parties. On the Repub side it's the knuckledragging ultra-conservative social nazi's you mentioned. On the Dem side it's their mirror opposite/twins, the ultra liberal, uber arrogant egg head intellectuals who think they're smarter than their constituents and can use the government to solve all of the world's problems like Pelosi and Reid.

Government is about the only chance we have to save the country and I'm not betting on it being sucessful.

The last decade has shown that capitalism is as big of a failure as the old Soviet economic system; if it weren't for hard-working taxpayers like myself, capitalism would have only lasted a mere twenty years longer than the Soviet empire. You'd think that the greed freaks would take a lesson from the Soviet collapse and make sure that they always left something on the table for the middle-class so that the middle class would always be there to bail their sorry asses out.

[Ivytalk]

Actually, I'm a libertarian who has serious concerns about both parties. On the Repub side it's the knuckledragging ultra-conservative social nazi's you mentioned. On the Dem side it's their mirror opposite/twins, the ultra liberal, uber arrogant egg head intellectuals who think they're smarter than their constituents and can use the government to solve all of the world's problems like Pelosi and Reid.

Having...difficulty...disagreeing...with...UNI88.

I too am quickly becoming a two party system obstuctionist.

Meet H. Ross kalm!

[Baldy]

Exactly

Especially considering that the article was written by a member of the extreme far left lunatic fringe.

Yep, Sheer is on the left, and also correct on this issue.

I read Charles Krauthammer every Saturday and find him occassionally making some valid point.

Scheer only presents half of the story a small fraction of the problem as a matter of fact. I know the ultra left wing boogereaters want to put all the blame on the private banking system and Capitalism in general, but as usual the root cause of the financial crisis is the systemic failure of government. Ground zero for this meltdown was the collapse of the subprime mortgage industry. Who was by far the largest player in that market? The ones most responsible for the whole mortgage backed securities fiasco? That's right, the government. Fannie and Freddie made AIG and Enron look like a jaywalking violation.

In 2006, a government regulatior tried to blow the whistle on the shenanigans going on at Fannie and Freddie. The regulator even testified before Congress only to be villified by Donks like Barney Frank and Maxine Waters. The issue was swept under the rug and was allowed to fester for two more years.

Scheer makes a point, but it's like putting a bandaid on on axe wound. He does the same thing other bedwetters do, blame Capitalism. What's the use of putting more regulations on the banks when the government gets to waltz away scott free?

[kalm]

I'll agree the crisis was a systemic failure of government, and I'll even concede that the unintended consequences of the CRA were an example of this. But evidently, these loans were so bad that Wall Street had to invest in them, placing bet after bet after bet. BTW, the FBI approached the Bush administration in 2004 over concerns of an impending sub prime mortgage crisis related to fraud but were denied an increase in agents due to the war on terror.

So was it the bad loans all by themselves that threatened the world wide economy or was it that and the many pigs at the trough of the speculative bubble including realtors, mortgage companies, banks, insurance companies, wall street etc?

The crisis still would have happened but with Glass-Steagal would have defintely reduced the severtiy of the crisis and quite possibly eliminated the need for bank bailouts and the rise in national debt.

[Baldy]

I'll agree the crisis was a systemic failure of government, and I'll even concede that the unintended consequences of the CRA were an example of this. But evidently, these loans were so bad that Wall Street had to invest in them, placing bet after bet after bet. BTW, the FBI approached the Bush administration in 2004 over concerns of an impending sub prime mortgage crisis related to fraud but were denied an increase in agents due to the war on terror.

So was it the bad loans all by themselves that threatened the world wide economy or was it that and the many pigs at the trough of the speculative bubble including realtors, mortgage companies, banks, insurance companies, wall street etc?

The crisis still would have happened but with Glass-Steagal would have defintely reduced the severtiy of the crisis and quite possibly eliminated the need for bank bailouts and the rise in national debt.

Link?

Of course Wall Street invested in those MBS'. Who wouldn't? They were issued by Fannie and Freddie, everyone knew that the government would back them up. No doubt there were many pigs at the trough, but the system was rotting from the head down. Because they knew that they owned over $7 Trillion in mortgages (most of it bad), Fannie and Freddie were the enablers by issuing toxic MBS' and selling the fact that they were backed up by the Federal government. It looked great on paper at the time, so people like Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, Rahm Emanuel, and the like made out like bandits and pocketed big fat bonuses.

[kalm]

I'll agree the crisis was a systemic failure of government, and I'll even concede that the unintended consequences of the CRA were an example of this. But evidently, these loans were so bad that Wall Street had to invest in them, placing bet after bet after bet. BTW, the FBI approached the Bush administration in 2004 over concerns of an impending sub prime mortgage crisis related to fraud but were denied an increase in agents due to the war on terror.

So was it the bad loans all by themselves that threatened the world wide economy or was it that and the many pigs at the trough of the speculative bubble including realtors, mortgage companies, banks, insurance companies, wall street etc?

The crisis still would have happened but with Glass-Steagal would have defintely reduced the severtiy of the crisis and quite possibly eliminated the need for bank bailouts and the rise in national debt.

Link?

Of course Wall Street invested in those MBS'. Who wouldn't? They were issued by Fannie and Freddie, everyone knew that the government would back them up. No doubt there were many pigs at the trough, but the system was rotting from the head down. Because they knew that they owned over $7 Trillion in mortgages (most of it bad), Fannie and Freddie were the enablers by issuing toxic MBS' and selling the fact that they were backed up by the Federal government. It looked great on paper at the time, so people like Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, Rahm Emanuel, and the like made out like bandits and pocketed big fat bonuses.

http://www.seattlepi.com/national/397690_fbiweb28.html

So we can agree that both parties were asleep at the wheel. And I agree that you can't blame Wall Street for being greedy - that's what its supposed to be. But that greed was fascilitated by the $5 billion dollars it spent in campaign financing to both parties over the last decade in an effort to deregulate the financial sector. So both campaign finance and it's coinciding deregulatory effects are the real culprits. Hence the point of this thread.

And we should have learned this by now anyway. Taking a historical view, deregulation and tax cuts on the rich precede a temporary bounce, follwed by a bunch of free money, followed by a bubble followed by the consolidation of power, follwowed by a recession - typically bailed out by government intervention.

Neo-liberal economics is a large national get rich quick scheme. It's like the "Old bull and Young bull" story. Personally, I've never bought into get rich schemes. I prefer the wisdom of sustained growth offered by the old bull.

[AZGrizFan]

Actually, I'm a libertarian who has serious concerns about both parties. On the Repub side it's the knuckledragging ultra-conservative social nazi's you mentioned. On the Dem side it's their mirror opposite/twins, the ultra liberal, uber arrogant egg head intellectuals who think they're smarter than their constituents and can use the government to solve all of the world's problems like Pelosi and Reid.

Government is about the only chance we have to save the country and I'm not betting on it being sucessful.

The last decade has shown that capitalism is as big of a failure as the old Soviet economic system; if it weren't for hard-working taxpayers like myself, capitalism would have only lasted a mere twenty years longer than the Soviet empire. You'd think that the greed freaks would take a lesson from the Soviet collapse and make sure that they always left something on the table for the middle-class so that the middle class would always be there to bail their sorry asses out.

Jesus H. Christ, dawg. If you TRULY believe that GOVERNMENT is the answer, you're even dumber than I originally thought. And I already thought you were pretty fuckin' dumb.

Here's 'dawg at his super bowl party when the conversation turned to politics...

[blueballs]

Fannie and Freddie and their enablers- Barwey Fwank, who is STILL in power and doing everything he can to thoroughly f8ck the mortgage industry- were only half the problem. The other issue was the Wall Street practice of putting the very worst subprime loans in pools, rating the paper as "A" grade, and selling it all over the world.

The bond rating agencies and the entities that regulated them should all be jailed, drawn, quartered, beaten, disemboweled, emasculated, and any other fitting punishments one can think of.