It was repeal of government oversight (Glass-Steagal) that got us into the current economic mess. Banks used to be forbidden by law from using the stock market for casino gambling. Now they are too big to NOT use casino gambling because … because WHY, that’s why!
The oil spill debacle in the gulf was because the Republicans let the government body responsible for overseeing safety turn into a cesspool of corruption.
We need MORE government oversight of industry, not less. LOTS more oversight of corporations.
I would not limit this to just GM. I no longer believe in the “too big to fail” argument. If people don’t want any government oversight or regulation or “interference” then they should stop asking for bailouts and exemptions and incentives.
And yes, I would extend this to bankers and stockbrokers too. No more taxes for bailouts and bonuses.
Not to mention big agribusiness. OOPS – they’re smack dab in the middle of the “rugged individual” red states – we CAN’T remove farm subsidies – do we want to hurt the red-blooded American free-spirited ENTREPRENEUR by taking away his massive subsidy?
The problem with this is that though it would be satisfying to see the big banks explode after they screwed the pooch, the shrapnel would get us right in the heart. We can regulate, we can break up banks before they get too big, and we should have tied a lot of strings to the bailouts.
I wonder what the true motivation of the anti-bailout Republican was. Perhaps they knew it would pass, and so could make a nice populist argument without having to deal with the consequences, perhaps they were in favor of a new depression to really cut wages, benefits, and government, or perhaps they were economically ignorant and really didn’t understand what would have happened.
Sure. Let’s see. Farmers get subsidies to NOT grow things, don’t they? Or at least some of them? Ranchers get to use federal land for grazing - for free.
Rugged individuals. It’s sad. “Everyone” is a rugged individualist when there is a threat of oversight or regulation. But the same people have no problem accepting government protections, tariffs and other protection against competition, a bailout, or a few dollars when it suits them. Speaking of bailouts and stuff, don’t forget the airlines either, they’ve done some of that in the past too. Let’s include the pharmaceuticals, who got regulations created just for their benefit too.
Hypocritical rhetoric, all of it.
Too big to fail? How about too big and bloated to prop up?
Let’s see how individualistic, how libertarian, how free market, how independent they are, without government ensuring they can’t possibly fail (even when they deserve to).
Using hind sight, I would have no problem at all seeing the likes of Goldman Sachs, AIG, any and all of them, go bust. Or at least have to deal with the risks associated with their own bad decisions. They wanted money, lots of it. They screwed up. they wanted bailouts to save them. They got the bailouts but fought tooth and claw to keep anyone from looking at the books, or having any visibility. There were no break ups. The same “players” are still doing the same things. There are/were no strings, or very few strings.
They used the bailouts to line their pockets.
In short, they were rewarded for being stupid, incompetent, and dishonest. Next time, let them fail. No bailouts.
Your source says: “The Senate broke a Republican filibuster Wednesday to clear passage for a $26 billion state aid bill to help avert the layoffs of 140,000 teachers.”
So it’s about preventing layoffs and not propping up the salaries of teachers. Helping state governments prevent crippling spending cuts during a recession is in general an excellent policy and one of the best types of fiscal stimulus.
If state education spending is cut back the spending won’t just affect teachers. There are all the other staff at schools and what the schools spend on day-to-day education. I’m guessing that non-teacher spending makes up a chunk of the ten billion
When Clinton ,a Democrat, was president, we had a balanced budget and high employment. We did not have wars. We had reasonable taxation.
What did Bush do different? All of it . How did that work out?
Obama has been forced to implement programs to save the financial system and banks . He has attempted to create jobs. Why did he have to do that? See above, Bush. fucked it all up and we will pay for a long time.
Well that was sloppy phrasing on my part. The better phrase would have been financial markets, which includes the stock markets. The particular tool I’m referring to was a financial instrument known as a derivative, namely mortgage-backed securities, that made the crash a lot worse than it might have been. Banks were once forbidden to engage in such speculations by Glass-Steagal. Then it got repealed. In condjunction with ARMs (Adjustable Rate Mortgages that typically ballooned in cost after a few years) made freely in an economy where wages for the middle class had long been stagnant, it was an REALLY, REALLY bad idea.
It is worth noting that the recent financial reforms do not prevent banks from continuing to engage in such speculation. Gee, I wonder how long before the next crash?
It sounds entirely speculative to me. There is no proposal to consider. And I would be very surprised if the Obama administration came up with a proposal like this. In the USA we do not give anything more than token handouts to the middle class, who have to pay for the tax cuts for the wealthy and food stamps for the poor. (I approve of food stamps).
There needs to be another major stimulus, but forgiving underwater loans will not be it. If it happens, it will be major public works projects.
Now, now, now, in all fairness to all the people in the Bush Administration, you forget that they opposed “prosperity without a purpose” when running for office. They eliminated the prosperity and we all became more moral.
Well it was during Clintons’ Administration that Glass-Steagal was repealed. It was his one major economic mistake, and frankly, it wasn’t exactly Clintons’ initiative, it was his “triangulation” strategy to work with the Republicans, who were hot for the repeal to appease their moneyed masters. Plus, of course, they don’t like regulation.
It’s an important lesson, really … just because a measure appeals to the center, that doesn’t make it a good idea. In this instance, it was a horrifically bad idea. Which we have not yet corrected. :smack:
Ahh, OK. I trade stocks for a living. I guess it’s just starting to get under my skin that the stock market is getting thrown under the bus with the unregulated OTC derivatives markets.
BTW, I highly recommend The Big Short by Michael Lewis.
They love regulation when it’s levied on someone else and lines the right pockets re: pharmaceuticals, and government “protecting” us from the evil Canadians and the evil “poisons” they were evilly trying to sell :dubious:
That site says that, but other sites say it’s to maintain teacher salaries.
I think it comes down to how you want to define it. If there’s a shortfall of X billion dollars, you can pay for it either by cutting salaries or laying off people. Of course, the political class and the unions have a vested interest in saying that the result will be layoffs, because those affect the public whereas cuts in salaries don’t.
What I find outrageous is that, in a time when most private sector workers have been taking pay cuts and furloughs, and the unemployment rate is near 10%, teachers in some states are still getting significant pay raises. I work for one of the largest companies around, and we’ve been under a pay freeze for two years now, and American employees had to take four weeks of mandatory unpaid furlough last year. That’s the norm for the private sector. But in the government sector, pay raises are still being rolled out and the rate of layoffs has been a fraction of what it is in the private sector.
This is the typical way that governments defy the will of the people. In response to demands to cut the budget, several states have started furloughing police officers and firefighters - not coincidentally, the two types of service that the public says they want the most. They’re not cutting the salaries in the bureaucracy or stopping programs to buy expensive art for public buildings or anything like that. Oh no, if you want us to cut the budget, we’re going to fire your teachers and furlough your cops and firemen. So there.
And frankly, perhaps some teachers should be laid off. If they’re being paid with borrowed money, it’s certainly not clear to me that teachers should go to the head of the queue while other people will have their taxes raised in January to pay for it. The government would probably have a more effective stimulus plan if it simply took the 26 billion and used it to extend the Bush tax cuts further.
The underwater mortgage proposal is dumb in the extreme, and would be unfair to many Americans. I am not underwater in my mortgage, but I have most likely lost my 30% equity. If a proposal like this passed, it would be enough to make me vote straight ticket Republican, and I am a strong, money donating, Obama supporter who swore that I would never vote for a Republican until they ditched the Religious right and the Neocons. The thought of my tax dollars being given to people who bought houses with near zero down to make them whole after I have lost all the money I saved for years before I bought my home would seriously piss me off.
All that said, I didn’t believe the rumor about forgiving underwater mortgages for a second and I agree it sounds like a “death panel” type rumor started to rile up the troops.
