Politics
- Started
- Last post
- 33,614 Responses
- autoflavour0
- is that a punk band or something? are they any good?colin_s
- TheBlueOne0
Hear, Hear!
"The people who have been running our government for the past eight years have nothing but contempt for government. They believe only in politics and ideology, in that order. First, win elections by any means necessary. Second, once in a position to act in the public good, govern with the ideological conviction that government is either irrelevant or harmful to the public interest.
You can draw a straight line between firing U.S. attorneys for political reasons and turning a blind eye to the ruinous excesses of Wall Street. What's impartial justice against the possibility of gaining political advantage? Why shackle the hallowed free market with government oversight?
And, if you want to draw the line a little further, who cares if the prospective vice president appears to know nothing about anything?"
- hallelujah0
When Madmen Reign
By BOB HERBERTMadness.
I’m not holding my breath, but I would like to see the self-proclaimed conservative, small government, anti-regulation, free-market zealots step up and take responsibility for wrecking the American economy and bringing about the worst financial crisis since the Depression.
Even now, with the house on fire, the most extreme among them won’t pick up the fire hoses and try to put it out.
With the fate of the Bush administration’s desperate $700 billion bailout of the financial industry hanging in the balance, Representative Darrell Issa, a Republican from California, stuck to his political playbook like a man covered in Krazy Glue. He pronounced himself “resolute” in his opposition to the bailout because to be otherwise would amount to a betrayal of party principles.
To deviate from those principles, in Mr. Issa’s view, would be like placing “a coffin on top of Ronald Reagan’s coffin.”
We are in very strange territory here.
George H.W. Bush warned us about “voodoo economics” in 1980, but the ideologues clamped a gag on him and put him on the Gipper’s ticket. For much of the time since then, the madmen of the right have carried the day. They were freed of their remaining few restraints with the ascendance of George W. Bush in 2000.
These were the reckless clowns who led us into the foolish multitrillion-dollar debacle in Iraq and who crafted tax policies that enormously benefited millionaires and billionaires while at the same time ran up staggering amounts of government debt. This is the crowd that contributed mightily to the greatest disparities in wealth in the U.S. since the gilded age.
This was the crowd that cut the cords of corporate and financial regulations and in myriad other ways gleefully hacked away at the best interests of the United States.
Now we’re looking into the abyss.
When President Bush went on television last week to drum up support for the bailout package, he looked almost dazed, like someone who’d just climbed out of an auto wreck.
“Our entire economy is in danger,” he said.
He should have said that he, along with his irresponsible Republican colleagues and their running buddies in the corporate and financial sectors, put the entire economy in danger. John McCain and his economic main man, Phil (“this is a mental recession”) Gramm, were right there running with them.
Credit markets have frozen almost solid, banks are toppling like dominoes and brokerage houses are vanishing like props in a magic act. And who was one of the paramount leaders of the manic anti-regulatory charge that led to this sorry state of affairs? None other than Mr. Gramm himself, a former chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.
Where is Mr. Gramm now? Would you believe that he’s the vice chairman of UBS Securities, the investment banking arm of the Swiss bank UBS? Of course you would. A New York Times article last spring noted that the “elite private bankers” of UBS “built a lucrative business in recent years by discreetly tending the fortunes of American millionaires and billionaires.”
Toadying to the rich while sabotaging the interests of working people was always Mr. Gramm’s specialty. He was considered a likely choice to be treasury secretary in a McCain administration until he made his impolitic “mental recession” comment. He also said the U.S. was a “nation of whiners.”
The tone-deaf remarks in the midst of severe economic hard times undermined Senator McCain’s convoluted efforts to reinvent himself as some kind of populist. But they were wholly in keeping with the economic worldview of conservative Republicans.
The inescapable disconnect between rhetoric and reality is often stark. Senator McCain has been ranting recently about the excessive pay and “bloated golden parachutes” of failed corporate executives. And yet one of his closest advisers on economic matters is Carly Fiorina, who was forced out as chief executive of Hewlett-Packard. Her golden parachute was an estimated $42 million.
Voters have to shoulder a great deal of the blame for the economic mess the country is in. Too many were willing, for whatever reasons, to support politicians who spat in the eye of economic common sense. Now the voodoo that permeated conservative economic policies for so many years has come back to haunt us big-time.
The question voters should be asking John McCain is whether he has stopped serving his party’s economic Kool-Aid, which has taken such a toll on working families, and is ready to change his ways. Is his sudden populist transformation the real thing or just a mirage?
In the gale force winds of a full-fledged economic hurricane, it’s fair to ask Senator McCain whether he still considers himself a conservative, small government, anti-regulation, free-market zealot. Or whether he’s seen the light.
- TheBlueOne0
Seriously, go read how bad this bill would of been - it would of effectively legalized it for banks to hold ZERO reserves as of tomorrow. And to do that, they buried legal language across three different bills to hide it. In other words the banks could hold NOTHING against any money you deposit in it. If you can say, "No, please, let me bend over so you can ass rape me again." in legalese this would be it:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonl…
(I know it's dailykos, so take that for what it is in terms of partinship, but it's a great dis-assembling of the crap that was in the bailout plan). Relevant part here:
"Yes, I read the bill. And here is what I found most shocking:
Follow along, so you know I am not making this up:
http://financialservices.house.g…So here is the bill. Kindly download and turn to page 83. The following passage:
13 SEC. 128. ACCELERATION OF EFFECTIVE DATE.
14 Section 203 of the Financial Services Regulatory Re-
15 lief Act of 2006 (12 U.S.C. 461 note) is amended by strik-
16 ing ‘‘October 1, 2011’’ and inserting ‘‘October 1, 2008’’.This made me almost cry for my country. Looks pretty innocuous, just sitting there, looking all legal. Sitting pretty if you will. No one will ever see it, buried so deep.
Well, I did.
So what is Title 12 of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006, proudly passed by the Republican-lead Congress? You remember that gang, don’t you? Surely they would have our best interests at heart.
What’s in Sec. 203?
http://www.govtrack.us/...SEC. 203. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this title shall take effect October 1, 2011.
Oh well, that’s fine. But what’s in the amendment?
SEC. 202. INCREASED FLEXIBILITY FOR THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD TO ESTABLISH RESERVE REQUIREMENTS.
Section 19(b)(2)(A) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 461(b)(2)(A)) is amended--
(1) in clause (i), by striking `the ratio of 3 per centum' and inserting `a ratio of not greater than 3 percent (and which may be zero)'; and
(2) in clause (ii), by striking `and not less than 8 per centum,' and inserting `(and which may be zero),'.Wow, looks like somebody is taking a ratio to zero. I wonder what that ratio is? I bet you in the back already know.
Let’s go to 12 U.S.C. 461, and see exactly what is is we are adjusting.
Let’s see here, Section 2, Subnote A of 12 U.S.C. 461. How is that for obscure! Let’s see what we got here.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/...
(2)
(A) Each depository institution shall maintain reserves against its transaction accounts as the Board may prescribe by regulation solely for the purpose of implementing monetary policy—
(i) in the ratio of 3 per centum for that portion of its total transaction accounts of $25,000,000 or less, subject to subparagraph (C); and
(ii) in the ratio of 12 per centum, or in such other ratio as the Board may prescribe not greater than 14 per centum and not less than 8 per centum, for that portion of its total transaction accounts in excess of $25,000,000, subject to subparagraph (C).You dirty apes.
You mean to tell me that each depository institution can maintain zero reserves against its transaction accounts?
You put it right there in writing! Sure you buried it across three bills, but you are now allowing for the possibility that banks can hold zero reserves!
This is how the bank code would have read had the bill passed today:
Each depository institution shall maintain reserves against its transaction accounts as the Board may prescribe by regulation solely for the purpose of implementing monetary policy—
(i) in a ratio of not greater than 3 percent (and which may be zero) for that portion of its total transaction accounts of $25,000,000 or less, subject to subparagraph (C); and
(ii) in the ratio of 12 per centum, or in such other ratio as the Board may prescribe not greater than 14 per centum and which may be zero, for that portion of its total transaction accounts in excess of $25,000,000, subject to subparagraph (C).So you plan on restoring confidence in the banks by allowing the banks not to have any reserves to match people’s checking and savings accounts? What, was the FDIC just going to cover that all? Wait, don’t answer that, I already know the answer.
But remember the effective date! The original Relief Act of 2006 called for a date of October 1, 2011 to allow banks zero reserves, if the Federal Reserve Board thought it fit. This bill would have moved that up to tomorrow!
Tomorrow people! Do you hear me! Tomorrow we could have all woken up to the possibility of zero holdings in our banks and it being legally allowed!"
- Sounds like documentaries on these days will be passed by our kids to one another, despite instant jail threat.rafalski
- Wow. I really have zero faith in our government now. None. TBO, you going to be a Libertarian with me now?tommyo
- I don't like the Libertarian fashions really...I'll stick with my neo-left anarchist enlightenment aficianado tagTheBlueOne
- formed0
Tomorrow we will wake up with no banks to hold our money, that is, if anyone has any money left.
- harlequino0
I really like Douglas Rushkoff a lot. A voice of reason, he's great at calling out bigger picture things with respect to history and civilization as a whole. Look for what he's been saying about central currency systems and all. Great stuff.
http://rushkoff.com/index.php?s=…
"Is what’s going on in the economy right now really worse than anything that’s happened in the past few decades? Are we heading towards a bank collapse like what happened in 1929? Or something even worse?
On a certain level, none of these questions really matter. Not as they’re being phrased, anyway. What we think of as “the economy” today isn’t real, it’s virtual. It’s a speculative marketplace that has very little to do with getting real things to the people who need them, and much more to do with providing ways for passive investors to grow their capital."
- ********0
"No, I'm not," Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) declared after the vote. "The market may be down, but the Constitution is up!"
- ********0
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.), another opponent, found a precedent in Russian lit. "The choice is stark, and it was put forth in the book by Dostoyevsky, in 'The Brothers Karamazov,' " he said.
- ********0
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) became entangled in logic as he argued: "This bill offends my principles, but I'm going to vote for this bill to preserve my principles."
- TheBlueOne0
Look, the bailout was a fucking terrible terrible idea as written. But quite honestly, while I'm glad the Republicans voted it down, but I have no illusions that they did so for complete and total self-serving and short term interest. They have presented no alternate plan (I mean other than the same less regulation! Cut taxes! meme). They did so to pin the entire schtick on the House Dems to have something - anything - to run on in November. I mean for fucks sake the Republicans for ten years ( from 1994-2006) did EVERYTHING to deregulate the financial industry. But now they can run home and say - "Oh look the dems wanted to help out the financial industry! We're the best party ever!" It's crass, opportunistic and really tells you that the heart of their party is dead.
The Dems on the other hand seem to want to LOOK effective and try to p[ass this bill - or any bill. They think any action is good. They're wrong of course, and while the Republicans have certainly been the corporate party, the Dems have especially had certain inroads into the finance industry (see the financial class' overwhelming support of Obama vs. other corporate interests). That certainly plays a role here.
There are reports, and I don't underestimate their validity that the Republicans told Pelosi "Sure bring the vote to the floor and we'll support it..." only to punk her and the Dems out when the actual vote was taken. I am certain that happened. Well fuck the Dems for wanting this bill to pass and fuck the Republicans for playing politics with such an important pivotal event.
Washington is broken top to fucking bottom. They're not even rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic anymore, now they're having shiv fights to see who gets to sit in them....
- ********0
- Thank you Reaganomics! Your fruits have been rotten.Mimio
- deregulation, low taxes and great punk rock during that period.robotron3k
- You couldn't buy a job either!Mimio
- ********0
Just add zeroes
- ********0
Reagan's Economic Legacy
National Debt
- ********0
johndiggity
the stock market will crash this week."Dow jumps 400 points on bets that a bailout plan can get passed. But September truly is the worst month."
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/30/…Lol. Until of course it doesn't get passed again then it's another "whahh whahhhh" until it spikes again a few days later.
- omgitsacamera0
My friends parents had invested 40k for college.
All gone as of late.
- lowimpakt0
what would the 40K pay for? everything e.g. living, accommodation, tuition, registration etc?
- everything.omgitsacamera
- i'm sure they would build it up moreomgitsacamera
- how do people go to university if they don't have that much money lying around?lowimpakt
- scholarships, sometimes the govt. funds it, etc.omgitsacamera
- loanstommyo
- i went to school because of scholarships and govt. grants, and came out nearly debt-free. all paid off quickly. I'm lucky.bulletfactory
- autoflavour0
http://americannewsproject.com/n…
very interesting watch about sarah palin and her views on the apocalypse
- dbloc0
- hahatommyo
- ha!robotron3k
- hahaha what a funny bitch.sofakingbanned
- I'm booking my ticket right now and I don't even have relatives in Florida!boobs
