5
   

Republican responses to Wall Street Meltdown?

 
 
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 10:45 am
So, I have a question for the republicans over this Wall Street meltdown.
It's a question I pose to the same republicans who lash out at every opportunity against the "socialist" tendancies of the left....at the desires of the left to extend a helping hand to the poor or downtrodden.
It's a question I pose to the republicans who refer to the poor and downtrodden as irresponsible, lazy, unmotivated, reckless financial drains on society.
It is a question I pose to the republicans who uniformly chant the mantra "not with my money you won't"....

I ask of the republicans who rail against a certain human segment of American society, what their opinions are of this current situation on Wall Street. What are your opinions of the calls to bail out massive financial institutions who have been, at times, irresponsible, lazy, unmotivated, reckless, and who are now, quite clearly, a financial drain on society.

Read this and please, feel free to respond:

Quote:
Don't let them tell you this economic meltdown is a complicated mess. It's not. Our national financial crisis is readily understood by anyone who has seen greed and hypocrisy. But we are now witnessing them on a profound, monumental scale.

Conservative Republicans always want the government to stay out of business and avoid regulation as long as they are making lots of money. When their greed, however, gets them into a fix, they are the first to cry out for rules and laws and taxpayer money to bail out their businesses. Obviously, Republicans are socialists. The Bush administration has decided to socialize the debt of the big Wall Street Firms. Taxpayers didn't get to enjoy any of the big money profits on the phony financial instruments like derivatives or bundled sub-prime paper, but we get the privilege of paying for their debt and failures.

Let's just consider the money. The public bailout of insurance giant (becoming a dwarf) AIG is estimated at $85 billion. According to one report, that's more than the Bush administration spent on Aid to Families with Dependent Children during his entire time in office. That amount of money would also pay for health care for every man, woman, and child in America for at least six months.

How did we get here?

That's pretty easy to answer, too. His name is Phil Gramm. A few days after the Supreme Court made George W. Bush president in 2000, Gramm stuck something called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act into the budget bill. Nobody knew that the Texas senator was slipping America a 262 page poison pill. The Gramm Guts America Act was designed to keep regulators from controlling new financial tools described as credit "swaps." These are instruments like sub-prime mortgages bundled up and sold as securities. Under the Gramm law, neither the SEC nor the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) were able to examine financial institutions like hedge funds or investment banks to guarantee they had the assets necessary to cover losses they were guaranteeing.

This isn't small beer we are talking about here. The market for these fancy financial instruments they don't expect us little people to understand is estimated at $60 trillion annually, which amounts to almost four times the entire US stock market.

And Senator Phil Gramm wanted it completely unregulated. So did Alan Greenspan, who supported the legislation and is now running around to the talk shows jabbering about the horror of it all. Before the highly paid lobbyists were done slinging their gold card guts about the halls of congress, every one from hedge funds to banks were playing with fire for fun and profit.

Gramm didn't just make a fairy tale world for Wall Street, though. He included in his bill a provision that prevented the regulation of energy trading markets, which led us to the Enron collapse. There was no collapse of the house of Gramm, however, because his wife Wendy, who once headed up the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, took a job on the Enron board that provided almost $2 million to their household kitty. And why not? Wendy got a CFTC rule passed that kept the federal government from regulating energy futures contracts at Enron.

If John McCain gets elected and chooses Phil Gramm as his Treasury Secretary, which many politico types see as likely, they will be able to talk about the good old days when Gramm was in congress and McCain was in the senate and they were in the midst of the Savings and Loan crisis.

The S and L scandal, which may look precious when compared to our present cascade of problems, isn't hard to understand, either. But it is impossible to take John McCain seriously on our current financial Armageddon since he was dabbling in the historic collapse of 747 S&Ls that occurred during Ronald Reagan's era. In the early 80s under the Republican president, congress deregulated the savings and loan industry in much the same way that Gramm made sure there were no laws hindering our current financial malefactors on Wall Street. S&Ls simply lobbied until they had less regulation and then began making rampant, unsound investments.

The guy who was going the wildest with financial freedom was Charles Keating, who headed up Lincoln Savings and Loan of California. Because the S&L industry had managed to get congress to increase FDIC insurance from $40,000 to $100,000 on deposits, the irresponsible investing of people like Keating began to put taxpayer insurance funds at great risk of loss. Keating placed money in junk bonds and questionable real estate projects and because so many other S&Ls started acting the same way the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB) began to push for a regulation that limited these dangerous speculative "direct" investments to 10% of an S&L's assets.

And Keating didn't like it; he called on a private economist named Alan Greenspan, who promptly produced a study saying that there was no danger in "direct" investments.
But that didn't convince the FHLBB and as further scrutiny showed Lincoln Savings and Loan was making even more historically bad investment decisions, a federal investigation was launched.

So Keating called his home state senator John McCain.

McCain and four other US senators (known to history as the Keating Five) met with Edwin Gray, then chairman of the FHLBB. McCain had been hesitant to attend but had reportedly been called a "wimp" behind his back by Keating. The message to the FHLBB and Gray from the Keating Five was to lay off Lincoln and cool the investigation. Gray and the FHLBB did not relent but Lincoln stayed in business until 1989 when it collapsed with the rest of the S&L industry. The life savings of more than 20,000 elderly investors disappeared with the failure of Lincoln. Keating went to prison for five years.

Charles Keating was John McCain's pal. They met in 1981 and Keating dumped $112,000 in the McCain campaign bank accounts between '82 and '87. A year before McCain met with the FHLBB regulators, his wife Cindy and her father, according to newspaper reports at the time, invested about $360,000 in one of Keating's shopping centers. The Arizona Republic reported McCain and his wife and their babysitter took nine trips on Keating's private jet to the Bahamas to stay at the S&L liar's decadent Cat Cay resort. The senator didn't pay Keating back for the plane rides until years later when he was under investigation.

McCain wasn't found guilty of anything but bad judgment, which is an historic understatement. Republicans, who led deregulation of the S&L industry, delayed the bailout until after the 1988 election to make sure George H. W. won the White House. The cost to taxpayers for helping these 747 bad actors in the S&L industry was finally estimated at $1.4 trillion. If the bailout had begun in 1986 instead of after the presidential election, the cost would have been contained at $20 billion.

And now the Republicans who engineered our present crisis and got us into the S&L debacle of the 80s are before us saying the markets need regulation. No, actually, they don't need regulation. Why don't you Republican capitalists who believe in the free markets get out of the damned way and let them work and allow these various financial nuthouses be crushed by the weight of their own stupidity? When it is all over, we'll have sane and sober people create laws to make sure it doesn't happen again, assuming we survive this chaos.

Also, while you are handing out our tax money to idiots on Wall Street, save a little of the long green for the unemployed auto and construction workers and all of the other people who have lost their jobs because you were too stupid to notice what Phil Gramm was doing and you were convinced everything was going to be just fine because the markets work.

These, then, are the people -- the Republicans -- who want to run our government for four more years. John McCain isn't just one of them. He rides their jets. He takes their campaign donations. He makes them his campaign advisors. And he tells us to trust him.

He must think we are a nation of village idiots.

Hell, maybe we are.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-moore/a-nation-of-village-idiot_b_127340.html
 
View best answer, chosen by candidone1
Woiyo9
 
  0  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 10:52 am
@candidone1,
Why then did President Clinton SIGN THE THING?????
candidone1
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 11:00 am
@Woiyo9,
Question posed to republicans about current situation:
Answer: "Clinton"

Wicked awesome....and predictable.
Now, go away.
Woiyo9
 
  3  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 11:07 am
@candidone1,
You absolutely refused to answer the question as to WHY DID CLINTON SIGN THE BILL????

Fluffington in her obvious bias say everything except that one little IMPORTANT fact.

Why do you refuse to address that in your childish response????
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 11:11 am
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:

You absolutely refused to answer the question as to WHY DID CLINTON SIGN THE BILL????

Fluffington in her obvious bias say everything except that one little IMPORTANT fact.

Why do you refuse to address that in your childish response????



Clinton signed the bill, because his version of Democratic money policy was more like republican-lite. He was a big business Dem. Nothing surprising there.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 11:17 am
@Woiyo9,
I wasn't aware that I was obligated to respond to tangential issues that the republicans are obsessed with, namely, Clinton.
Besides, I asked the question on this thread and you failed to respond cogently to it.

But Cyclo has it right. Althought Clinton has long been the whipping boy of the republicans, big business was his business.

Mind answering the question I posed wioyo or do you want to continue your puerile little bait and switch tactic?--'cause I'm not biting. If so, answer the question. If not, go somewhere else to whine about everything Clinton.
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 11:26 am
Who's to blame for the biggest financial catastrophe of our time?
By David Corn
July, 2008

Who's to blame for the biggest financial catastrophe of our time? There are plenty of culprits, but one candidate for lead perp is former Sen. Phil Gramm. Eight years ago, as part of a decades-long anti-regulatory crusade, Gramm pulled a sly legislative maneuver that greased the way to the multibillion-dollar subprime meltdown. Yet has Gramm been banished from the corridors of power? Reviled as the villain who bankrupted Middle America? Hardly. Now a well-paid executive at a Swiss bank, Gramm cochairs Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign and advises the Republican candidate on economic matters. He's been mentioned as a possible Treasury secretary should McCain win. That's right: A guy who helped screw up the global financial system could end up in charge of US economic policy. Talk about a market failure.

Gramm's long been a handmaiden to Big Finance. In the 1990s, as chairman of the Senate banking committee, he routinely turned down Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Arthur Levitt's requests for more money to police Wall Street; during this period, the sec's workload shot up 80 percent, but its staff grew only 20 percent. Gramm also opposed an sec rule that would have prohibited accounting firms from getting too close to the companies they audited"at one point, according to Levitt's memoir, he warned the sec chairman that if the commission adopted the rule, its funding would be cut. And in 1999, Gramm pushed through a historic banking deregulation bill that decimated Depression-era firewalls between commercial banks, investment banks, insurance companies, and securities firms"setting off a wave of merger mania.

But Gramm's most cunning coup on behalf of his friends in the financial services industry"friends who gave him millions over his 24-year congressional career"came on December 15, 2000. It was an especially tense time in Washington. Only two days earlier, the Supreme Court had issued its decision on Bush v. Gore. President Bill Clinton and the Republican-controlled Congress were locked in a budget showdown. It was the perfect moment for a wily senator to game the system. As Congress and the White House were hurriedly hammering out a $384-billion omnibus spending bill, Gramm slipped in a 262-page measure called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. Written with the help of financial industry lobbyists and cosponsored by Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the chairman of the agriculture committee, the measure had been considered dead"even by Gramm. Few lawmakers had either the opportunity or inclination to read the version of the bill Gramm inserted. "Nobody in either chamber had any knowledge of what was going on or what was in it," says a congressional aide familiar with the bill's history.

It's not exactly like Gramm hid his handiwork"far from it. The balding and bespectacled Texan strode onto the Senate floor to hail the act's inclusion into the must-pass budget package. But only an expert, or a lobbyist, could have followed what Gramm was saying. The act, he declared, would ensure that neither the sec nor the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (cftc) got into the business of regulating newfangled financial products called swaps"and would thus "protect financial institutions from overregulation" and "position our financial services industries to be world leaders into the new century."

Subprime 1-2-3

Don't understand credit default swaps? Don't worry"neither does Congress. Herewith, a step-by-step outline of the subprime risk betting game. "Casey Miner

Subprime borrower: Has a few overdue credit card bills; goes to a storefront lender owned by major bank; takes out a $100,000 home-equity loan at 11 percent interest

Lending bank: Assuming housing prices will only go up, and that investors will want to buy mortgage loan packages, makes as many subprime loans as it can

Investment bank: Packages subprime mortgages into bundles called collateralized debt obligations, or cdos, then sells those cdos to eager investors. Goes to insurer to get protection for those investors, thus passing the default risk to the insurer through a "credit default swap."

Insurer: Thinking that default risk is low, agrees to cover more money than it can pay out, in exchange for a premium

Rating agency: On basis of original quality of loans and insurance policy they are "wrapped" in, issues a rating signaling certain slices of the cdo are low risk (aaa), medium risk (bbb), or high risk (ccc)

Investor: Borrows more money from investment bank to load up on cdo slices; makes money from interest payments made to the "pool" of loans. No one loses"as long as no one tries to cash in on the insurance.
It didn't quite work out that way. For starters, the legislation contained a provision"lobbied for by Enron, a generous contributor to Gramm"that exempted energy trading from regulatory oversight, allowing Enron to run rampant, wreck the California electricity market, and cost consumers billions before it collapsed. (For Gramm, Enron was a family affair. Eight years earlier, his wife, Wendy Gramm, as cftc chairwoman, had pushed through a rule excluding Enron's energy futures contracts from government oversight. Wendy later joined the Houston-based company's board, and in the following years her Enron salary and stock income brought between $915,000 and $1.8 million into the Gramm household.)

But the Enron loophole was small potatoes compared to the devastation that unregulated swaps would unleash. Credit default swaps are essentially insurance policies covering the losses on securities in the event of a default. Financial institutions buy them to protect themselves if an investment they hold goes south. It's like bookies trading bets, with banks and hedge funds gambling on whether an investment (say, a pile of subprime mortgages bundled into a security) will succeed or fail. Because of the swap-related provisions of Gramm's bill"which were supported by Fed chairman Alan Greenspan and Treasury secretary Larry Summers"a $62 trillion market (nearly four times the size of the entire US stock market) remained utterly unregulated, meaning no one made sure the banks and hedge funds had the assets to cover the losses they guaranteed.

In essence, Wall Street's biggest players (which, thanks to Gramm's earlier banking deregulation efforts, now incorporated everything from your checking account to your pension fund) ran a secret casino. "Tens of trillions of dollars of transactions were done in the dark," says University of San Diego law professor Frank Partnoy, an expert on financial markets and derivatives. "No one had a picture of where the risks were flowing." Betting on the risk of any given transaction became more important"and more lucrative"than the transactions themselves, Partnoy notes: "So there was more betting on the riskiest subprime mortgages than there were actual mortgages." Banks and hedge funds, notes Michael Greenberger, who directed the cftc's division of trading and markets in the late 1990s, "were betting the subprimes would pay off and they would not need the capital to support their bets."

These unregulated swaps have been at "the heart of the subprime meltdown," says Greenberger. "I happen to think Gramm did not know what he was doing. I don't think a member in Congress had read the 262-page bill or had thought of the cataclysm it would cause." In 1998, Greenberger's division at the cftc proposed applying regulations to the burgeoning derivatives market. But, he says, "all hell broke loose. The lobbyists for major commercial banks and investment banks and hedge funds went wild. They all wanted to be trading without the government looking over their shoulder."

Now, belatedly, the feds are swooping in"but not to regulate the industry, only to bail it out, as they did in engineering the March takeover of investment banking giant Bear Stearns by JPMorgan Chase, fearing the firm's collapse could trigger a dominoes-like crash of the entire credit derivatives market.

No one in Washington apologizes for anything, so it's no surprise that Gramm has failed to issue any mea culpa. Post-Enron, says Greenberger, the senator even called him to say, "You're going around saying this was my fault"and it's not my fault. I didn't intend this."

Whether or not Gramm had bothered to ponder the potential downsides of his commodities legislation, having helped set off an industry free-for-all, he reaped the rewards. In 2003, he left the Senate to take a highly lucrative job at ubs, Switzerland's largest bank, which had been able to acquire investment house PaineWebber due to his banking deregulation bill. He would soon be lobbying Congress, the Fed, and the Treasury Department for ubs on banking and mortgage matters. There was a moment of poetic justice when ubs became one of the subprime crisis' top losers, writing down $37 billion as of this spring"an amount equal to its previous four years of profits combined. In a report explaining how it had managed to mess up so grandly, ubs noted that two-thirds of its losses were the fault of collateralized debt obligations"securities backed largely by subprime instruments"and that credit default swaps had been "key to the growth" of its out-of-control cdo business. (Gramm declined to comment for this article.)

Gramm's record as a reckless deregulator has not affected his rating as a Republican economic expert. Sen. John McCain has relied on him for policy advice, especially, according to the campaign, on housing matters. The two have been buddies ever since they served together in the House in the 1980s; in 1996, McCain chaired Gramm's flop of a presidential campaign. (Gramm spent $21 million and earned only 10 delegates during the gop primaries.) In 2005, McCain told a Wall Street Journal columnist that Gramm was his economic guru. Two years later, Gramm wrote a piece for the Journal extolling McCain as a modern-day Abraham Lincoln, and he's hailed McCain's love of tax cuts and free trade. Media accounts have identified Gramm as a contender for the top slot at the Treasury Department if McCain reaches the White House. "If McCain gets in," frets Lynn Turner, a former chief sec accountant, "we'll have more of the same deregulatory mess. I like John McCain, but given what I know about Phil Gramm, I wouldn't vote for McCain."

As a thriving bank exec and presidential adviser, Gramm has defied a prime economic principle: Bad products are driven out of the market. In John McCain, he has gained an important customer, so his stock has gone up in value. And there's no telling when the Gramm bubble will burst.
------------------------------------------------------------

Commodity Futures Modernization Act:
http://www.stroock.com/SiteFiles/Pub134.pdf

0 Replies
 
Woiyo9
 
  3  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 11:34 am
@candidone1,
What question was that?

You post an article from Fluffington and I respond.

Where was you question?

So again, I would like to know if this was such bad legislation, why did Clinton sign it?
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 11:35 am
@Woiyo9,
See my post above for the answer to your question.

BBB
Woiyo9
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 11:36 am
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
Where does it reference Clinton supporting and signing that bill? Did I miss it?
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 11:39 am
@Woiyo9,
Why are you so lazy and so ignorant? I even put the paragraph in bold for you.

BBB
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 12:00 pm
@Woiyo9,
If you weren't serious woiyo, I'd probably be having a chuckle right now.
Unfortunately, you think that primacy should be given to a your tangential question even before you fully read my original post or BBB's post.
What you are asking is not germane to the original question, but not surprisingly, as most republicans seem to think, evoking the Clinton meme is a game winner.
Unfortunately, it's not.

This thread isn't about Clinton. It's not even about the democrats. I am asking the republicans who have this hypocritical view of handouts, a loose grasp of what constitutes socialism, and who have, for decades (not solely through a 2 term president) staunchly pushed for economic practices that
1. "punish" the so-called irresponsible investor/citizen
2. Help primarly, if not solely, the wealthy
3. Do little for the poor and downtrodden
4. Least resemble socialism, allowing market forces (and major coroprations and financial institutions) to drive the economy.
5. make the consumer/buyer/investor "responsible" for the consequences of their actions

....but now republicans seem to be pushing for more help for the wealthy, they are puching to reward irresponsible major corporations/financial institutions, they are pushing to continue to crush the individual citizen (with bailouts that impact primarily the taxpayer)--which looks a helluva lot like socialism.

I had a question pretty explicity laid out in my original post. Read it, respond to it, ignore it. But don't troll through here thinking that your question somehow trumps the question posed in the opening post of the thread.

Wanna gripe about Clinton, start a new thread.
TilleyWink
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 12:45 pm
What about the responsibility of the people. We loved the good times we all traded up in housing, autos, and travel. Common folks we get what we vote for or not vote for. We have a representational Republic.

Our economic system is neither GOP or D it is capitalism. Our political system is a republic meaning that we elect individuals to represent US! I does not work the other way around. By that I mean that the elected representatives of the Senate and House do not and are not responsible for us. They are however responsible to us for keeping them in or out of office.

So the answer my friends is who among us will step up to the plate and discuss honestly their individual responsibility in this mess and how they plan to shore up the world financial system.
Woiyo9
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 01:46 pm
@candidone1,
Just pointing out the irresponsible reporting of FLUFFINGTON and your apparent hypocrisy.
candidone1
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 01:49 pm
@TilleyWink,
The point has here been made that the type of capitalism seen in the 21st century has been bred by the republicans. That was essentially the point being made by both myself and BBB.

But more to the point is this:
If "this is free market capitalism", then why is the (republican) government bailing out major financial institutions when there has typically been much so much (republican) opposition to the American government being involved in that sector.
Why have there been so many extensive attempts to de-regulate the finance and banking industry? If the governments role in this mess remains consistent with the republican ideal-- to stay the f*ck out of it--then why is it now pruident for the government to now be in it?
If the philosophy of a free market is to truly be the way you and many other republicans paint it to be, then these corporations need to
1. make wise business choices
2. object to legislation that will, in any real or hypothetical situation, damn their entire company, even if it may lead to short term gains
3. sink like rats on a ship when they are the ones responsible for setting it on fire.

....but yes, I agree also that people who decided to spend money they don't have or buy too many things on credit need to be accountable. Where I object to this on an entirely different level is at the corporate and governmental levels, especially in light of the opinions republicans typically have regarding governmental interference in the market they cherish so dearly.

It's like kids dealing with parents....you can't be rude to them and tell them to mind their business all the time but then ask them to help you when you're in the back of a cop car or need bail money.
candidone1
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 01:55 pm
@Woiyo9,
You've pointed out nothing woiyo...both Cyclo and I agree that Clinton was a big business republican lite, democrat. You're arguing with yourself...and, arguning a point that really has no bearing on the thread or the question at hand.
So, I know you think you've victoriously played the "Clinton-gotcha" game, but you haven't accomplished a single thing, other than waste space and time. This really is some pretty advanced douchebaggery.
I'm almost impressed.

So, I repeat, have anything germane to add or have you run out of Clintonian distractions?
Woiyo9
  Selected Answer
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 02:05 pm
@candidone1,
NEW YORK (AP) -- Wall Street had a stunning late-session turnaround Thursday, shooting higher and hurtling the Dow Jones industrials up more than 400 points after a report that the federal government may create an entity that will take over banks' bad debt.

ADVERTISEMENT
The report on CNBC said Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is considering the formation of an entity like the Resolution Trust Corp. that was set up after the failure of savings and loan banks in the 1980s.

Investors were cheered by the notion of a huge federal intervention like the establishment of RTC to acquire the real estate debt that has hobbled financial institutions and led to the intense volatility in the markets this week.

If there's an RTC-like entity, "it's going to take a lot of the bad debt off the balance sheets of these companies," said Scott Fullman, director of derivatives investment strategy for WJB Capital Group in New York. That would alleviate many of the pressures causing the credit crisis, he said, and open up the credit markets again. But Fullman noted, "the devil's in the details."

"Bear markets are very sensitive to news. And on a scale of 1 to 10, this one is a 13," he said.

In late afternoon trading, the Dow soared 411.66, or 3.88 percent, to 11,021.32.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080918/wall_street.html?.v=44

Looks like the socialists will not only bail out the companies but now the socialists will insist the taxpayers bail out the holders of the bad paper.

My point is that this Govt has given the bankers the drug by deregulating and BOTH parties supported that measure.

This current Congress is running for cover as both candidates are preaching thier usual line of bullshit.

Bottom line is ME the taxpayer will again get screwed.

So please go on touting your love and respect for the Democratic party and continue to be naive to the reality that the current crop of Senators and Congressmen should be relieved of their duties.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  0  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 04:43 pm
@candidone1,
Your quote give ample reasons about the present day dilema.
USA had been rulled ir not ruined by a handfull of conservatives who had allowed the vultures with greed and hypocrisy as the WMD.
But I beg to submit that the system which prevails now is hard to get it repaired.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 05:30 pm
@candidone1,
candidone wrote :

Quote:
If the philosophy of a free market is to truly be the way you and many other republicans paint it to be, then these corporations need to
1. make wise business choices
2. object to legislation that will, in any real or hypothetical situation, damn their entire company, even if it may lead to short term gains
3. sink like rats on a ship when they are the ones responsible for setting it on fire.



i fully agree with you - that's how a capitalist society should operate .
unfortunately - as has been stated elsewhere before - corporations are usually all for "capitalism" and against "unduly harsh" government regulations when the sun is shining and the money is flowing in ... but when things go awry they often develop a strange appetite for wanting "the government" (the good old taxpayer) to share the burden "because it will benefit everyone and is good for the nation as a whole" .

a canadian politician used the phrase "corporate welfare bums" to describe the executives of such corporations at one time . of course , corporate chairmen , company presidents and members of boards of directors where outraged by the use of such words .
this happenend about 40 years ago and hardly anyone remembers his words - but they have outlived him .
(the politicians was david lewis , leader of canada's NDP - new democratic party)
hbg

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51W55PKYA8L._SL500_BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg
0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 05:54 pm
@candidone1,
I actually agree with you here.

I think you're being a bit disingenuous, though; the whole market meltdown has plenty of blame to go around. Jim Johnson, part of Obama's VP search committee, was a big part of the Fanny Mae/Freddy Mac fiasco. In fact, Obama was the number two recepient of political funds from that organization behind John Kerry.

Barney Frank is the current head of the Financial Ways and Means committee, which is supposed to oversee this nonsense.

So there is plenty of blame to go around.

But like I said - as I tend to lean libertarian - I agree with you. I don't believe the government should be involved at all.

Let it crash. Monitor for illegal actions, but let the market go where it will. Those that will survive, will. Those that won't will be replaced.

Our financial system, with its truckload of debt, will have to reset sooner or later. We are not going to be able to finance all the programs the government has set up, especially once the boomers begin to retire en masse.

Hard times are coming. We will rebound, but we are eventually going to have to bite the bullet. Our 'money' is backed by nothing but the future taxes of the workers supporting the government; our government has taken the idea that debt doesn't mean anything.

Both parties are to blame, though.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Republican responses to Wall Street Meltdown?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/28/2024 at 08:52:57