On 10/25/2009 10:17 AM Tim Daneliuk spake thus:
How about the fact that it was Clinton who got rid of Glass-Steagall, the firewall between banking and the stock market that had been in place since the New Deal? This was undertaken by *Democrats*.
Yes, that's true. But if you think the Dems are mostly/solely responsible for this, you're kidding yourself. (And I am NO fan of the Dems or the left at all). Where were both Clinton and GWB when it came time to enforce the *existing* laws concerning naked short selling? (Which has been illegal for a very long time and which was going on regularly during both administrations.) See, I fail to see how more regulation is going to change much when the government can't be bothered to enforce the laws already on the books. And THAT, ain't a partisan thing. Both parties have behaved very badly in this regard.
In truth, Greenspan was more right than wrong even regarding how markets would punish fraud. Fraud is not sustainable unless you use force because fraud - sooner or later - collapses. But the government swine made sure that no collapse was possible: They bailed out the banks that took insane risk. They bailed out the greedy pigs that took out more mortgage than they could afford. They bailed out the lazy union slobs that demanded far more for putting bolts in the bottom of a transmission than they ever were worth. In short, there's little point in having market transparency and honesty if every time someone is about to lose, the government steps in, prints funny funny and "saves them" from themselves. Markets DO work - efficiently and mercilessly. They cannot, however, overcome the overweening force of government when it is applied to thieves, morons, and whiners respectively.
On 10/25/2009 1:29 PM Tim Daneliuk spake thus:
You're playing something of a semantic game here. Regulation doesn't mean just having laws on the books: it also means enforcing them. Plenty of administrations have flouted regulations which were in force either by underfunding the agency responsible for enforcement, or by ordering the agency not to enforce. (Bush II with the EPA, Clinton with the SEC and other fiduciary regulator bodies.)
It did not originate on Reddit.... and yet you claim you were there when it did... . . hmmmmmm
Perhaps not - I do not recall all the particulars as I prefer not to swim in sewers. Nonetheless, the whole meme got a lot of traction on Reddit if it didn't actually originate there and my larger point stands: Beck gets heat because the people who oppose him are politically illiterate, incapable of any sophisticated counterpoint, and generally intellectually unkempt children. Do I mostly agree with Beck? No. Do I think he is light years smarter and of higher integrity than his critics? Yes.
At least they're dry. You might try a 12 step program yourself ... instead of your more usual two-step.
You always seem so quick on the trigger with a smart-ass answer, that 'glib' thing you do. The "at least they're dry" remark makes it quite clear you have neither a clue about 'dry drunk syndrome' nor the effects it has/had on people in position where this can lead to very bad decisions, or total lunacy.
Let me help you a little:
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D "Dry Drunk" has been described as "A condition of returning to one's old alcoholic thinking and behavior without actually having taken a drink." Or as one wise old drunk put it, if a horse thief goes into A.A. what you can end up with is a sober horse thief. Or a personal favorite: you can take the rum out of the fruit cake, but you've still got a fruit cake!
Those who quit drinking but are still angry about it, wind up living miserable lives and usually make everyone else around them miserable too. If it has been said once in an Al-Anon meeting, it has been whispered thousands of times, "I almost wish he would go back to drinking." =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
You may want to read up on this a little before shooting your mouth off....again.
I'd be happy to suggest a place for you to get the necessary help.
The alternative is despair and inaction...
Neither is cost effective.
Daneliuk, you're so full of shit it's stagnating. Your tolerance is limited to whining constantly about what something is going to cost you. That's the *only* constant in your life.
It was the Clinton administration that required banks et al to make unsustainable loans. When the financial institutions balked - and demonstrated imminent financial collapse if the new regulations were followed - the administration came up with an "insurance plan." They allowed Fannie and Freddie to bundle this commercial paper and take the risks away from the banks.
When the "balloon payments" of these zero-interest loans came due, the homeowners simply refinanced their homes at the newer, higher, valuation. This scheme worked as long as there was a demand for housing (and sufficient poor people who could be talked into signing papers they couldn't even read). Eventually everybody in the country owned a house - demand for housing vanished.
The Ponzi scheme then collapsed back on itself.
I dunno what you're so upset about. American politics don't threaten
*your* mooching off your neighbors. You already have your collectivist paradise, so quit whining...
Dang, every time I install a new Irony Meter along comes a post like this and zap, it's time to wire in a new meter.
The legislation was actually written by Republicans, although Clinton signed it and defends doing so to this day.
FORMER PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON No, because it wasn't a complete deregulation at all. We still have heavy regulations and insurance on bank deposits, requirements on banks for capital and for disclosure. I thought at the time that it might lead to more stable investments and a reduced pressure on Wall Street to produce quarterly profits that were always bigger than the previous quarter. But I have really thought about this a lot. I don't see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch (MER) by Bank of America (BAC), which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill.
[MB] Phil Gramm, who was then the head of the Senate Banking Committee and until recently a close economic adviser of Senator McCain, was a fierce proponent of banking deregulation. Did he sell you a bill of goods? [BC] Not on this bill I don't think he did. You know, Phil Gramm and I disagreed on a lot of things, but he can't possibly be wrong about everything. On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence. But I can't blame [the Republicans]. This wasn't something they forced me into. I really believed that given the level of oversight of banks and their ability to have more patient capital, if you made it possible for [commercial banks] to go into the investment banking business as Continental European investment banks could always do, that it might give us a more stable source of long-term investment."
It's the same group that loved Dubbya.
Dave in Houston
What's the different, one group love Dubbya and the other love Messiah? I really don't see any different and change, but the same old craps!
Sigh. Killing or capturing Osama was never a goal of the United States. Only in the alternative reality of those who opposed the war was such a thing a strategy. The legal mindset of the left insists that evil-doers be brought before the bar. The national integrity impetus of the right says that the enemy must be vanquished or at least neutralized.
So say you. Ask the 100,000 military personnel still in Iraq if it was worth it.
Yep, under Bush we had 24 consecutive quarters of economic growth, negligble inflation, and unemployment as low as four percent. While Bush did run up the national debt during his eight years by some $800 billion, Obama doubled that in his first month and is on his way to quadrupling the eight-year $800 billion before his first year is out.
HOPE is not a strategy
Yep, as I said: simply breathtaking.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.