Describe the govt. over reach and power grab over the banks that you object to.

Seems to me we regulated the banks heavily after the great depression, broke up integrated banks and security firms via Glass Stegall, set minimum capital requirements, and everything was fine. Under Reagan we began the deregulation that continued through 2005 until we blew up the financial system in 2008. The govt. stepped in and backstopped a more orderly liquidation of failed banks, including Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, WaMu and gave TARP money to many, and much of the TARP has been repaid with interest (we will probably lose on AIG). Now we are trying to pass financial regulation that is not as onerous as the depression era rules (no Glass Stegall). Just what do you object to? When Lehman Bros. was allowed to fail, a panic started in the financial markets, credit would just about freeze up since the true condition of counter parties could not be ascertained, no lending could occur. I'm not a banking expert, but most think the actions taken were necessary, even with some theft involved like Goldman Sachs shaking down the american people to make good all the credit default swaps they bought from AIG that AIG could not pay off.

Every single CEO and the top officers of every one of the failed institutions became very rich, they drove their cars (companies) at 120 MPH into brick walls and had to liquidate them which wiped out millions of mom and pop stockholders. What's wrong with this picture. Is that a result of too much CEO control or too much govt. control, given we've been deregulating for 30 years?

So, given we were in horrible condition and two years later we are not in horrible condition, just bad condition, just what is your problem?

I got no problem, I'm fine where I stand. Though I'd say the argument that we're not just as bad off is a matter of opinion. I don't see unemployment coming down. I don't see spending being cut. I don't see the trillions in debt even being attempted to be paid off. I DO see taxes going up significantly very soon, which will do nothing but give the greedy bastards more money to spend on who knows what. That money will be spent and borrowed again before Washington ever gets its hands on it. You don't have to agree with me though, that's the beautiful thing. If we were all just a bunch of pods that agreed on everything, where would the fun be in that?

Nobody said there weren't abuses on both sides. With power comes corruption. It matters not whether it's the government we're talking about or gigantic corporations. My belief however, is that I don't see where anything good has ever come from the rapid expansion of government we've seen as of late. And it just keeps getting worse. And it's not just the left, or right, it's the politicians that can't manage the money we give them to run the country efficiently. Instead, they're like a bunch of pigs at a slop trough.. They consume and consume and never look up until the slop stops flowing. As I said before, I don't like it. I'll take my chances with a corporate friendly environment and less government interference any day.

When government "creates" jobs, it costs money. Money we don't have (borrowed) to pay salaries that get taxed. Then they spend the little bit they got back in taxes like they actually created that revenue and never pay off what was borrowed before. How can you climb out of a hole by digging deeper?

When corporations create jobs, it creates revenue. Nobody I know personally ever ended up rich working for the government... Of course, I don't personally know anyone in politics (go figure). I do however have several friends that are doctors, lawyers, sales managers, executives, consultants, engineers, etc... All of which do pretty darned well for themselves in the private sector. None of those guys like big government spending, high taxes, or massive regulation either... go figure again. So what exactly did capitalism do to you personally that makes you not like it so much? Those mom and pop share holders you spoke of knew when they invested their money there was risk involved. You don't get something for nothing, that's how the system works. Some win, some lose. And if you want to talk about getting screwed on retirement money, get back to me when I'm old enough to start drawing the Social Security I'll never get.. Thanks politicians, glad you were "looking out" for us.

I'm no banking expert either. Since you admit you aren't one, I guess that makes your opinion about as valid as mine doesn't it? :thumb:

Good post. I agree with most of it. I am not comfortable with the deficit, it will be bad for the value of the dollar in the long run. What I don't get is the hatred for Obama, when the republicans drove the deficit up from 5 trillion to 11 trillion from 2001 to 2008 and wrecked the economy in the process by over jugging the housing market. Much of today's deficit is not building bigger govt.; its loss of income tax revenue from lost jobs and lower capital gains taxes from stock market gains (since the market is going down there are fewer capital gains).

The deficit will shoot much higher than expected because the social security shortfall is hitting now, sooner than expected by 8 years. This is because people who are 62 and can't find a job need income so they are taking their social security earlier than they would have. This is nothing Obama has done, its that republican total rule from 01-06 cratered the economy in 07 and 08, very deep recession, nuked the banking system and recovery is real slow.

But, we sit around and talk like its all on the politicians and interest rate policies and deficits, and I don't think that is where the problem is. I'll have to start a new thread and throw some other ideas out one day.

I don't know the things Bernanke or Geithner know about banking, or any of the CEO's so I'm not an expert. But I do know how corp. america works, from my discussions I think I know better than 95% of the folks out there. I've developed some vision, and when I see actions taken today, my blunt assessment of why that action is being taken and its probable outcome has gotten better over the years. I think that's a skill that can be developed, you have to start trying to analyze why and make your prediction, then wait 5 or 10 years, see how it turned out, were you right or wrong, and why was your prediction on or off. Problem with this approach is by the time you get good, they are ready to carry you to your grave! At any rate, I do consider myself a serious observer, so I don't consider myself uninformed on banking activity.

Anyhow, I like your post and the discussion. You bring a sane and balanced approach to the process.

A quick comment about govt. spending, and where the economy is now, its similar to a private business, big debts to business can be bad since they have to be serviced. Business sometimes reaches a point where the marketplace is changing and you either have to take on a big debt to modernize and if you are wrong and you can't service the debt you will go out of business. If you don't take on the debt, you will be bypassed and you will eventually go out of business. If modernization is required, you better be right about it.

In the govt. sector, there are times to run the deficit up beyond normal levels for good reasons. War that is necessary to fight is one good reason (although BS political wars are not a good reason), and to stop your economy from tanking is another good reason. If individuals quit spending and business quits spending, the govt. has to spend or the economy will implode down to depression. In that case, a high deficit and weak dollar is bad, but preferable to a small deficit and a decimated economy (if the economy implodes bad enough, you'll get a bigger deficit eventually anyhow due to reduced tax receipts).

Typical post, Republicans are responsible for everything bad and Democrats had nothing to do with it even though they controlled the congress by 08.

I never said the dems didn't have anything to do with it, they were certainly not helpful. They had an opportunity to help, and they didn't.

The repubs had the whole deal, presidency, house and senate for six years, 2001 - 2006, and they failed to govern wisely, and they bear that responsibility. The big flood of subprime mortgage backed securities occurred in 2004 - 2006, while the repubs were in control of it all. The markets began to implode in early 2007, when the democrat congress had just been seated.

New Century files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy - Apr. 2, 2007

You didn't have too, all the liberal networks did for one thing.
Anyway any post I have read of yours including our discussions gave me that impression including your conversations with DRC.

And what did the Democrats do OR try and do about it?

The Republicans paid the political price for their actions.
I am very unhappy about the way things are going in this country and there is no doubt that I blame the Republicans for this.
They acted like Liberals during those years and IMHO that is what has led to the catastrophic circumstances we have today.
But Obama has done many of the same thing, carried out the same policies and has hired General Be-Tray-Us and yet he gets no flack, Why is that?
I think the problem is that most people only know the partial truth or a whole lie.
People simply can't make an intelligent voting decision when they aren't told the whole truth.

As bad as the Republicans were these Democrats are far worse!

I agree with your post Swerved btw.

Not nearly enough.

As they should have.

Agreed, mainly for 2001-2006. At this point, gridlock of the 90's is looking better and better.

Agreed.

It's hard to respond to this without specifics. Let me throw out the Stimulus, 800 billion of deficit spending. Adds a big hunk to the deficit, long term weakens the dollar a bit. The repubs never faced a recession as deep or as fast moving as that in 2008, it was the biggest since the Great Depression. Unusual times call for unusual measures. Bush's tax cut in 01 and his second tax cut in 03 simply added to the deficit, and we had a slow jobless recovery that came mostly from low interest rates and the targeted boosting of the housing market by the repubs. We can quibble about the content of the stimulus, was there enough building projects vs. unemployment benefits, but in general I think the stimulus did what it was intended to do; keep the economy moving artificially until it can mend and sustain itself. Bush never faced the NEED to do the deficit spending he did.

Agreed. The political outlets, Fox and MSNBC, are total spin.

Disagree. The jury is still out.
We are trying to get out of Iraq, that's good.
We have ramped up Afghanistan, and that may make sense if we are securing a base from which to attack Al Qaeda across the border in Pakistan, but the objective in Afghanistan has not been stated. It is costing us more, and the people don't understand the objective, and that is Obama's fault.

I try to keep up with what is going on to help me make better investment decisions. When you lay down you money and they go to take it (you made a losing decision), they don't ask if your a repub or a dem, they just take your money. Both parties are pretty corrupt, and seem intent on enriching the people who put them in office, corporate america. My job is to understand their real motive, will it produce a windfall for someone, can I take advantage of that, and if it's obvious the party will end badly, be prepared to get out early so when the music stops I'm not left without a chair. Usually I win, sometimes I lose.

Again they have tried it with the fairness doctrine. And they would grab the power to silence the opposition. The End

I can agree with corporations are heartless bastards but the big difference is the in fact the government should be the policing force to make sure the corporations aren't screwing us. If it's the government screwing us who is policing them?

Best example with the new health care nightmare they shoved down our throats. What happens if malpractice occurs under government control? Do you think you are going to sue the government for damages or will you get any compensation? Good luck

I see you have no idea how your country works and that is a pity. Do you simply believe anything Rush and Glen say?

There is such a thing as the First Amendment of the US Constitution:

Who protects the Constitution? The military; every branch's officer corp take an oath to defend the Constitution, and there is no mention of loyalty to the president.

Like this:

Enlisted vs Commissioned Military Oath of Office Citizens Against Pro-Obama Media Bias

Now, clearly that is an Obama hate site, but they are correct, you can look up the officers oath anywhere.

Then they go on to say:

So if Obama were to try and grab the internet to "silence the opposition" they would be violating the first amendment and the military would take action to arrest the president and defend the constitution. Eliminating freedom of the press is the best way for Obama or any president to lose. That is unless you believe the military loves Obama so much they would allow him to violate freedom of the press and support him in doing it, in violation of the oath they took to defend the constitution. I don't see that happening.

The first time I heard this discussion seriously was in 1973, when my neighbor in Gretna, an Air Force officer at Belle Chase, told me they were being reminded of their oath, in case Nixon order Congress to be disbanded. He was dead serious. The military would not have listened to Nixon, their oath was to defend the Constitution.

I see no possibility of this occurring. If you do, state a reasonable case.