Obama's ticker or not?

[ishtat]

This article by Ross Gittens a very experienced and cynical economist suggests that despite overwhelming public support to do so President Obama is not going to regulate the Big Banks properly.

Given that on this issue public opinion demands reform wheras Congress may be inclined to sell its soul to Wall Street it seems to me that this issue has the potential to define President Obama as a weakling or a strong President.

This is in contrast to the Obamacare debate where there is strong grass roots opposition.

www.smh.com.au/business/financial-sector-may-avoid-taking-its-medicine-200090913-fm7u.html

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

This article by Ross Gittens a very experienced and cynical economist suggests that despite overwhelming public support to do so President Obama is not going to regulate the Big Banks properly.

Given that on this issue public opinion demands reform wheras Congress may be inclined to sell its soul to Wall Street it seems to me that this issue has the potential to define President Obama as a weakling or a strong President.

This is in contrast to the Obamacare debate where there is strong grass roots opposition.

www.smh.com.au/business/financial-sector-may-avoid-taking-its-medicine-200090913-fm7u.html

If B of A's multimillion dollar bonuses is in indicator...

 

[amicus]

Thank you, Ishtat, for the link and the article...interrupted, daughter just called as she arrived in the Big Apple for a sight seeing tour...

The Banks have been regulated and overseen since the 20's, Investment firms shortly after that and really clamped down on during the Roosevelt administration.

That, as a pragmatic matter, causes me to doubt the efficacy of regulation.

Philosophically, I detest the adversarial attitude the press and socialist apologists place business and government in.

In this current financial crisis and aftermath, those who were supposed to regulate, actually milked or 'played' the system for their own benefit and their own social agenda's and I refer specifically to Fannie and Freddie, Government agencies that were corrupted by politicians and ideologues.

Human nature applies in both government and free enterprise endeavors and, seemingly, no amount of control or regulation, even in the graveyard that was the Soviet Union, can ameliorate those criminally inclined among us.

That being said, one has the choice of trusting paid bureaucrats or corporate employees, or in our Keynesian accomodation, a bastard's brew of both.

Competition and the profit motive go a long way to regulating business enterprises; add to that an effective 'property rights' courts that protect the individual from both corporate and government invasion of rights, and I think you have a workable system.

Defending individual freedom, a free market and Capitalism is a nasty job; but somebody has to do it.

Amicus

 

[DeeZire]

. Given that on this issue public opinion demands reform wheras Congress may be inclined to sell its soul to Wall Street it seems to me that this issue has the potential to define President Obama as a weakling or a strong President.

This quote from the linked article lays it out pretty clearly:

"I hope I'm wrong, but I have a terrible fear that, contrary to everything you might have expected from all the outrage the US public was expressing a year ago, the Americans are going to end up with only a fraction of the reform they need.

Why so fearful? Partly because Wall Street is so powerful and the US system of government so morally corrupt. It's just too easy for interest groups with deep pockets to persuade enough freewheeling senators and congresspeople to let them off the hook."

I don't care who the president is, overcoming the moneyed interests in Washington would be a superhuman feat that God Herself would have trouble pulling off.

...This is in contrast to the Obamacare debate where there is strong grass roots opposition...

Rebutting the red herring in your post, here is the latest polling data from http://www.pollingreport.com/health.htm dated Sep. 10, 2009

"Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government administered health insurance plan -- something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get -- that would compete with private health insurance plans?"

Favor - 68%, Oppose - 27%, Unsure - 5%

In light of these numbers, can we stop referring to the grassroots opposition to healthcare reform and call it by it's proper name - Astroturf?

 

[Dragonlipz]

Turn off the TV and educate yourselves......

 

[ishtat]

Just for the sake of this thread and to keep it on the subject of financial institution regulation I will not contend your assertion that the grassroots opposition to Obama's healthcare reforms is modest

I don't care who the president is, overcoming the moneyed interests in Washington would be a superhuman feat that God Herself would have trouble pulling off.

I agree it would be difficult, very difficult to overcome those interests but the question in my mind is, does the President have the political courage to even try? I hope so but remain unconvinced.

Incidentally I don't agree with Amicus' free market model as appropriate to banks. I think that capital and solvency requirements have to be regulated to ensure a stable international financial environment not least because these organisations are supra national themselves. Essentially what America decides will have to be followed elsewhere because even in her present wounded state the US economy is still by far the most powerful in the world.

Amicus is an idealist to my pragmatist even if both of us are sympathetic to the capitalist economic system.

 

[DeeZire]

...I agree it would be difficult, very difficult to overcome those interests but the question in my mind is, does the President have the political courage to even try? I hope so but remain unconvinced....

He did give a little speech today, suggesting new financial regs and reforms for Wall Street. In this respect, he is trying.

 

[TE999]

He did give a little speech today, suggesting new financial regs and reforms for Wall Street. In this respect, he is trying.

The Big O's speech went THUD! on the trading floor when he proceeded to lecture them on fiscal responsibility. This from a man who's never met a payroll, held a real job and doesn't know anything more about economics than what his underlings tell him.

The biggest hoot was he's responsible for a huge outpouring of tax money to the very people he's criticizing that hasn't been collected from people who work for a living and hasn't done squat to rescue the economy in spite of all the rhetoric.

Do as I say, not as I do. Why am I not surprised? Heh!

 

[Stella_Omega]

The Big O's speech went THUD! on the trading floor when he proceeded to lecture them on fiscal responsibility. This from a man who's never met a payroll, held a real job and doesn't know anything more about economics than what his underlings tell him.

The biggest hoot was he's responsible for a huge outpouring of tax money to the very people he's criticizing that hasn't been collected from people who work for a living and hasn't done squat to rescue the economy in spite of all the rhetoric.

Do as I say, not as I do. Why am I not surprised? Heh!

I can't call day traders workers-for-a-living, not in the rhetorical way that you imply here.

Of course it went thud, fiscal responsibility is exactly the opposite of what they do.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Obama wont be able to pull his stunts long when the math catches up to him, cuz people wont give a shit about his lofty intentions.

During the Civil War someone asked Lincoln for his sentiments about his prosecution of the war. Lincoln said, IF I DO EVERYTHING WRONG AND THE END COMES OUT RIGHT, IT WONT MATTER; IF I DO EVERYTHING RIGHT AND THE END COMES OUT WRONG, GOD AND ALL HIS ANGELS CANT SAVE ME.

 

[TE999]

I can't call day traders workers-for-a-living, not in the rhetorical way that you imply here.

Of course it went thud, fiscal responsibility is exactly the opposite of what they do.

Just because you don't labor in the fields doesn't mean you aren't working. I used to hear that crap from my in-laws because I worked in an office, not at a trade outside like them. There's brains and then there's brawn. But we all pay taxes in one way or another.

There's an element of risk in any financial dealing, be it trading stocks and bonds or making loans. In both cases, the money involved is given voluntairily. Some take more risks than others, and some fail. That's life. If you want safe, bury your money in a jar in the back yard. Watch out for inflation and wave goodbye to compound interest.

When you squander someone elses money on one scheme after another that never achieve success, and you've taken that money essentially by force, that's fiscal irresponsibility. It's also legitimized theft. It's also the Federal Government.

 

[DeeZire]

There's an element of risk in any financial dealing, be it trading stocks and bonds or making loans. In both cases, the money involved is given voluntarily. Some take more risks than others, and some fail. That's life. If you want safe, bury your money in a jar in the back yard. Watch out for inflation and wave goodbye to compound interest.

So, you don't consider "financial instruments" and the insurance policies that pay out upon their failure to be fiscally irresponsible? Especially when the insurance companies don't have enough assets to cover the policies they wrote? Sounds like you have a bright future waiting for you on Wall Street.

When you squander someone else's money on one scheme after another that never achieve success, and you've taken that money essentially by force, that's fiscal irresponsibility. It's also legitimized theft. It's also the Federal Government.

It's not theft, it's voluntary. If you don't want to contribute to the federal government, you have several options.

1. Move to a different country (most of which will have a higher tax rate than this one.)
2. Lower your income level to the point where you don't have to pay taxes.
3. Hire a Wall Street accountant to find the loopholes the CEOs use to avoid paying taxes.

If that doesn't work for you, TE999, perhaps you could make a list of all the government services you deem unnecessary, and then see if you can drum up enough grass roots support to eliminate them - thereby lowering or eliminating your tax burden.

Good luck with that.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

The Big O's speech went THUD! on the trading floor when he proceeded to lecture them on fiscal responsibility. This from a man who's never met a payroll, held a real job and doesn't know anything more about economics than what his underlings tell him.

He did spend a night in a New York City alleyway when he was in college here and locked out of his apartment. I'd like to see you have the balls to try that.

Speaking of balls, let's see who'll be the first financial institution that thinks his words won't carry any weight and decides to be the first to test him out by doing the same shit, different year. It's a good feeling when people actually believe they're Superman wearing teflon underwear. And let's face it, it's hard giving up hundred-dollar lunches when you're getting six-digit bonuses for fucking up other people's money.

 

[Loring2]

Nonesense

He did spend a night in a New York City alleyway when he was in college here and locked out of his apartment. I'd like to see you have the balls to try that.

Speaking of balls, let's see who'll be the first financial institution that thinks his words won't carry any weight and decides to be the first to test him out by doing the same shit, different year. It's a good feeling when people actually believe they're Superman wearing teflon underwear. And let's face it, it's hard giving up hundred-dollar lunches when you're getting six-digit bonuses for fucking up other people's money.

So he spent a night in a NYC alleyway locked out of his apartment ... I doubt the mythology but given that, I've spent more than a few nights in a Vietnam jungle ... alone ... try that someday for drill. We're asking for his courage not his bravado, his plans not our dreams. He works for us, hopefully and supposedly.

Other than that it would be nice if he stopped campaigning. His speech a day is becoming tiresome and all that without saying anything except that we need change. We do not need his threats nor his salesmanship.

We need the Office of the President to remember that the Governement has no money and can get money only three ways, taxation, borrowing and theft.
The third method is most common with recent presidents, the system is called inflation. The third system is so subtle that most of you do not recognize it or even know what it is or how it affects you. I'm sure Mr. Geithner does even if his boss probably doesn't.

We need a President not an organizer and pedant

 

[Stella_Omega]

What are a President's duties, as opposed to an organiser's-- or a pedant's?

 

[TE999]

So, you don't consider "financial instruments" and the insurance policies that pay out upon their failure to be fiscally irresponsible? Especially when the insurance companies don't have enough assets to cover the policies they wrote? Sounds like you have a bright future waiting for you on Wall Street.




It's not theft, it's voluntary. If you don't want to contribute to the federal government, you have several options.

1. Move to a different country (most of which will have a higher tax rate than this one.)
2. Lower your income level to the point where you don't have to pay taxes.
3. Hire a Wall Street accountant to find the loopholes the CEOs use to avoid paying taxes.

If that doesn't work for you, TE999, perhaps you could make a list of all the government services you deem unnecessary, and then see if you can drum up enough grass roots support to eliminate them - thereby lowering or eliminating your tax burden.

Good luck with that.

Since I'm a committed investor, I'm already doing tolerably well on Wall Street, thanks. What part of risk vis a vis insurance escapes you? Not everybody wins all the time. It's the law of averages.

There's a fourth option that doesn't involve 1,2 or 3. It's called electing people that won't piss tax money away by throwing it down Social Engineering ratholes and vote getting schemes.

I already have a list. 1/2 the existing fed departments didn't exist until the mid-Sixties...and things have improved so much since then, Hah! If they disappeared tomorrow, no one would notice except a bunch of GS parasites and as far as elimination...we'll see about that.

I don't mind paying taxes to defend my country and keep it free. I do resent having my income redistributed in the name of 'fairness', 'equality'and other twaddle.

If you like paying for that tripe, send 'em all your money, get on the dole and live a life of leisure.

 

[DeeZire]

What part of risk vis a vis insurance escapes you? Not everybody wins all the time. It's the law of averages.

I'm talking about the AIG deal - insuring financial instruments without having the capital available to pay out the claims. The way I understood it, AIG was insuring financial instruments, and anyone could buy the insurance on anyone else's financial instrument. In other words, 50 people could buy insurance (place a bet) on the viability of a financial instrument that they had no stake in. It was lucrative for AIG, as long as the financial instruments didn't fail. This practice was outlawed after the Great Depression, but made legal again after the Great Depression was largely forgotten. Now, were does "fudiciary responsibility" fit into this picture?

I don't mind paying taxes to defend my country and keep it free. I do resent having my income redistributed in the name of 'fairness', 'equality'and other twaddle.

Aren't you a little old for the "Me Generation"?

FYI, the redistribution of wealth is going up, not down. Didn't we have this conversation a few days ago? What were the numbers, 1% of the population holds 90% of the wealth? Considering that wealth is what determines political outcomes, you would think, in a democracy, such a figure would be unacceptable.

Definitions of Democracy:

the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives

a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them

majority rule: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group

In a corrupt, money-driven political system such as we have today in the USA, how are the bottom 99% supposed to get representation in government if the government is only answering to the top 1%? Taking that a step further, how are the bottom 99% supposed to find candidates to vote for when the financial bar is set higher than a viable candidate could possibly afford?

(All rhetorical questions, TE999, since the only way to refute them is by abandoning logic.)

 

[JackLuis]

Obama hasn't shown me that he is confident enough to lead this nation. His timidity to take on substantive issues with clearly designated plans and force them thru the reluctant posturing Congress is frankly appalling to me.

He talks a good game but he does not have the political power to twist the Blue Dogs tails, and he can not commit himself to espouse practical means to achieve progress.

In short he shows that he has a lack of faith in the Constitution, he does not believe in the rule of law, brilliantly prosecuted to achieve his ends. He has not executed the law in the US and he is the Executive of the country!

Prosecute Bush-Chaney, hang a few bankers, the AEI mafia and nationalize the Federal Reserve. After that Health Care will fall right in line.

 

[amicus]

Exchanging thoughts with DeeZire is much like dropping a stone into a bottomless pit...there is nothing down there.

For all of recorded human history and before, the top few have held most of the wealth. Before this Republic, it was held by tribal leaders, Kings, Queens, Dictators and Commissars.

In previous Kindoms, wealth was accumulated in gold and precious stones and guarded day and night while the people starved. Theocracies built huge Cathedrals and places of worship with the stolen wealth of the people, then charged them a fare to heaven.

In a free market economy, one bound by laws of property, laws punishing theft and fraud, acquired wealth is not stashed away like a Pirate's gold coins, it works to build the commerce of a society and to employ those who work.

If you confiscated all the wealth of the richest and parcelled it out to those in need, the entire fortune would be spent in days and the wealth, which was invested, would be dissipated frivously and the Deezire's of the world would still whine about poverty.

Although it has been demonstrated over and over again, that high tariff's and trade restrictions contract an economy, this economically illiterate President is going down that road yet again to satisfy his Union obligations. Prices will increase, jobs will be lost, the economy will suffer and the left will whine that they were only trying to help American Tire Manufacturers.

Will they ever learn?

Not Democrats, they still harken back to the Industrial age when laboring men gave their wages to Union bosses.

Dumb...really, really dumb.

Amicus

 

[TE999]

I'm talking about the AIG deal - insuring financial instruments without having the capital available to pay out the claims. The way I understood it, AIG was insuring financial instruments, and anyone could buy the insurance on anyone else's financial instrument. In other words, 50 people could buy insurance (place a bet) on the viability of a financial instrument that they had no stake in. It was lucrative for AIG, as long as the financial instruments didn't fail. This practice was outlawed after the Great Depression, but made legal again after the Great Depression was largely forgotten. Now, were does "fudiciary responsibility" fit into this picture?



Aren't you a little old for the "Me Generation"?

FYI, the redistribution of wealth is going up, not down. Didn't we have this conversation a few days ago? What were the numbers, 1% of the population holds 90% of the wealth? Considering that wealth is what determines political outcomes, you would think, in a democracy, such a figure would be unacceptable.



In a corrupt, money-driven political system such as we have today in the USA, how are the bottom 99% supposed to get representation in government if the government is only answering to the top 1%? Taking that a step further, how are the bottom 99% supposed to find candidates to vote for when the financial bar is set higher than a viable candidate could possibly afford?

(All rhetorical questions, TE999, since the only way to refute them is by abandoning logic.)

Ah yes. The official Populist dogma about how it's not fair that so few people have all the money. Well, maybe it's because they're smarter or more clever than the other 99%. By the way, this isn't a democracy it's a constitutional republic.

If money's controlling politicians and politicians are controlling the money it seems that the snake's eating it's tail while we watch. Therefore, if the people that have all the money are corrupt, and they buy all the politicians who are corrupted in order to be elected, and the government they oversee is by association corrupt and since the government regulates the corrupt institutions that handle the money that they buy politicians with...everybodys corrupt!

Only those who toil from dawn to dusk and eat their bread flavored by the sweat of their brows are the truly noble among us. Just don't let them get their hands on any money, it'll corrupt them.

Whoops...there went Logic.

 

[JackLuis]

Did I mention Posturing Congress?

Here is an excellent example of the same.

You can trust a politician who stays bought.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

So he spent a night in a NYC alleyway locked out of his apartment ... I doubt the mythology but given that, I've spent more than a few nights in a Vietnam jungle ... alone ... try that someday for drill. We're asking for his courage not his bravado, his plans not our dreams. He works for us, hopefully and supposedly.

Other than that it would be nice if he stopped campaigning. His speech a day is becoming tiresome and all that without saying anything except that we need change. We do not need his threats nor his salesmanship.

We need the Office of the President to remember that the Governement has no money and can get money only three ways, taxation, borrowing and theft.
The third method is most common with recent presidents, the system is called inflation. The third system is so subtle that most of you do not recognize it or even know what it is or how it affects you. I'm sure Mr. Geithner does even if his boss probably doesn't.

We need a President not an organizer and pedant

That's funny. The campaign was like, last year ago, but I thought he was going out and talking to people because, you know, he can do so, in order to make sure they understand things better and to let them see that he wants to talk to them instead of barricading himself behind a wall of suits and only being seen coming out of the White House and waving to the cameras as he boards that big fat helicopter to Camp David for the third vacation day in a work week.

I mean, it's not his fault if everyone is so in love with yelling and screaming and causing a ruckus over his voice so they can conveniently say later on that they couldn't hear him or understand him and that he never tried to explain things to them. But see, this system of deliberate obfuscation is so subtle that the most stubborn and obstinate of you do not recognize it or even knew there was a dictionary word for it and how your disaffection affects you disaffectedly.

But yeah, I miss the days when I was a kid and I thought a President was a magical, mystical man that could do everything and anything in the whole wide world with but a command and a push of the button. So, when you say we need a President, I know what you mean, pod'ner! Sucks to grow up and realize you can't make everyone happy at the same time. I mean, Obama could do something tomorrow to make your personal world shine brighter than Oz, but the tradeoff is fucking someone else's life over and making them miserable as a half-stepped-on centipede.

Of course, as long as you're happy, you don't really have to care about that other person's life...and that's the beauty of our country! It worked for the last eight years...who's to say it can't work that way again, eh?

 

[amicus]

Irezumi yearns for a 'Glorious Leader', a mistaken father fetish. Like most of this generation who grew up without a stable male in the family mixture.

Most of my generation seldom looked to government, at any level, for anything, we only dealt with the bureaucracy when absolutely necessary or forced to.

Slowly, but inevitably as it turned out, Americans more and more must take government into consideration concerning most aspects of their lives.

They had something in the Soviet Union, 'Block Wardens' or something akin to that, petty bureaucrats that regularly spied on their neighborhood and reported to the local high muckety muck on a regular basis. Obama tried that and was slapped down when he wanted citizens to report what they thought should be done about any problems.

Perhaps times are changing, perhaps not, predicting the future is not a paying job, at least for me and I for one, short of revolution, see no way to return to the America I knew as a young man.

Amicus

 

[Tx Tall Tales]

I normally stay out of this, but I'd like to see a minimal effort at intellectual honesty.

Rebutting the red herring in your post, here is the latest polling data from http://www.pollingreport.com/health.htm dated Sep. 10, 2009

"Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government administered health insurance plan -- something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get -- that would compete with private health insurance plans?"

Favor - 68%, Oppose - 27%, Unsure - 5%

In light of these numbers, can we stop referring to the grassroots opposition to healthcare reform and call it by it's proper name - Astroturf?

Rebutting the red herring in your post, here is the latest polling data from
http://www.pollingreport.com/health.htm dated Sep. 10, 2009

"Overall, given what you know about them, would you say you support or oppose the proposed changes to the health care system being developed by Congress and the Obama administration? ... Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?" Options rotated

Strongly Support/Somewhat Support 46%
Strongly Oppose/Somewhat Oppose 48%
Unsure 6%

From the Same poll

"Which of these comes closest to your own view? The more I hear about the health care plan, the more I like it. OR, The more I hear about the health care plan, the less I like it." Options rotated

The More I Like It: 41%
The Less I Like It: 54%
Unsure: 5%

Is it possible that many of us wouldn't mind improving health care, just not the draconian efforts being forced through now? Maybe something like John Mackey of Whole Foods suggested.

In light of these numbers, can we stop referring to the obscenity they are trying to pass in the Senate and congress as "healthcare reform" and call it by it's proper name - Socialism?

 

[DeeZire]

If money's controlling politicians and politicians are controlling the money it seems that the snake's eating it's tail while we watch. Therefore, if the people that have all the money are corrupt, and they buy all the politicians who are corrupted in order to be elected, and the government they oversee is by association corrupt and since the government regulates the corrupt institutions that handle the money that they buy politicians with...everybodys corrupt!

Only those who toil from dawn to dusk and eat their bread flavored by the sweat of their brows are the truly noble among us. Just don't let them get their hands on any money, it'll corrupt them.

Whoops...there went Logic.

If everyone has the money, then everyone controls the government and corruption goes away, because the government is beholden to everybody, not just the top 1%. That's the whole point of corruption. Corruption corrupts the original purpose of what's being corrupted. In the case of a democracy, the government is supposed to be protecting the interests of the people it governs, but because of the corruption inherent in a redistribution of wealth upwards, it no longer does that. Understand now?

Ah yes. The official Populist dogma about how it's not fair that so few people have all the money. Well, maybe it's because they're smarter or more clever than the other 99%

FYI, measuring a person's worth by their wealth is meaningless. Consider the Wall Street crooks who abandoned integrity in order to amass their wealth. What is the worth of these individuals? Nada. Consider the trust fund losers like GWB. Do they deserve their fortune simply because they were born into it? Does that make them better than the rest of us? For every millionaire who is "smarter or more clever" than the rest of us, there are literally thousands of non-millionaires just as smart and clever who chose a different path. Does that somehow make them inferior?

Another consideration: If everyone's a millionaire, who does the shit work that enables these millionaires to amass their wealth? If you honestly think your wealth makes you better than anyone with a lower income than you, I suggest you eliminate anyone below your income level from your daily interactions, (including such things as buying food - food that was undoubtedly harvested by less-than-minimum wage workers) and see how you make out. You will discover that you depend on the very people you choose to denigrate. In fact, you need them desperately. Your very survival hinges on their toil. If they all became millionaires, you'd have to quit your job so you could grow your own food. This is why pissing on the poor is equal to pissing in your own mouth, because we're all in a symbiotic relationship.

I realize this concept might be a little hard for you to wrap your head around, but others will understand it, and the next time you go bragging about your wealth, it will only illustrate the poverty of your soul.