Coffeehouse Thread

95 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

US Treasury Secretary < TARP

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    JohnAskew

    For 16 months, Neil Barofsky was in charge of policing the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program, commonly known as TARP.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57477643/tarp-oversight-official-bailout-funds-mishandled/

    Barofsky says Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, in particular, is to blame for the mishandling of TARP. "Among other things, he presided over, made the policy choices to put the banks before homeowners. He oversaw a policy that saw our largest banks, the too-big-to-fail institutions get bigger than ever and more powerful, more politically connected. ... Where we are in the economy today is partly the responsibility of Secretary Geithner and the bad policy choices that he has made."

    This guy was aware of LIBOR rate fixing and only sent an email about it. No action to protect us.

    This guy is an example of how our government is for sale and is sold to the highest bidder - Wall Street.

    Both parties, Republican and Democrat are full of these profiteering self-serving elitists. Rotten.

  • User profile image
    spivonious

    @JohnAskew: All the more reason to vote for third party candidates, and let the big two parties know that we're not happy with either of them.

  • User profile image
    PaoloM

    , spivonious wrote

    @JohnAskew: All the more reason to vote for third party candidates, and let the big two parties know that we're not happy with either of them.

    Because the thrid party candidates are immune to these issues.... how?

  • User profile image
    GoddersUK

    @PaoloM: Because they've not had the opportunity to incriminate themselves... yet Wink

     

  • User profile image
    JohnAskew

    ugh.

    The Libertarian Party is the place where we go when we can't stomach our own party. Nothing more. Unicorns pee rainbows and fart butterflies, if I remember correctly.

    And I agree with Paolo that the lobbyists will find them and buy them, regardless, if they win.

     

  • User profile image
    spivonious

    @JohnAskew: I don't think they'd win, but if they got a sizable percentage of the vote (>15%), then maybe the two major parties would realize they're not invincible and start policing themselves.

  • User profile image
    dahat

    @spivonious:Sometimes they do win... other times they just take enough votes from one candidate to ensure victory to another.

    Third parties sound good in theory... but are rarely work out in the end.

    The better solution is to try to take over (or at least re-focus) an existing party from the inside... something the Tea Party has been fairly successful at.

  • User profile image
    JohnAskew

    @dahat: +1.   

    Campaign funding is where bribery in the USA begins and then it continues after elections through lobbyists in Washington D.C..

    ...+1 for the flat tax too, no loopholes.

    @spinovious: The corrupt will not police themselves... they won't change even with a loss or three. But I'm with the idea that something needs be done.

  • User profile image
    JohnAskew

    A too-big-to-fail bank must 1) fail, before they can 2) be bailed out, after which 3) the gov't buys them cheap, splits them apart, and sells them off.

    That's not a solution. That's a damage control plan for the next rip off.

    Our Treasury Secretary is a bad guy. Get off my porch, TG.

  • User profile image
    PaoloM

    , spivonious wrote

    @JohnAskew: I don't think they'd win, but if they got a sizable percentage of the vote (>15%), then maybe the two major parties would realize they're not invincible and start policing themselves.

    If this were Disneyland, sure. On planet Earth, they'll realize they're not invincible and start to make sure the third party will never have any chance ever again.

  • User profile image
    dahat

    , JohnAskew wrote

    @dahat: +1.   

    Campaign funding is where bribery in the USA begins and then it continues after elections through lobbyists in Washington D.C..

    You are focusing on the wrong thing... because if we blame the money... then I would have to ask you: How far do you want to limit free speech?

    Individuals and groups contribute time and/or money to candidates who they support and who they think will represent them best... contributors may simply be looking to be left alone...  others want something explicit in return.

    While one we consider noble and the other outrageous... is the problem that people contribute... or that those they contribute to have the power to actually reward their backers?

    More so, some individuals join together to form a group to speak and act with one voice, some groups do the same. If we have a government which has an almost unlimited authority over the lives & business of the population... is it so surprising that a group would attempt to seek favor from various capitols so that they can benefit and their competitors do not?

    The issue is not with contributions, or even corporate contributions... the issue is the amount of power that government (at all levels) has today... run by elected officials whose only qualification to dictate how you live your life, what products you will buy, what industries will succeed and which will fail... is that they were able to get just enough people to vote for them.

    Our Treasury Secretary is a bad guy. Get off my porch, TG.

    There is only one way to get rid of him... voting out his boss in November (which will also get rid of the similarly despicable Eric Holder).

  • User profile image
    DeathBy​VisualStudio

    , dahat wrote

    *snip*

    The issue is not with contributions, or even corporate contributions... the issue is the amount of power that government (at all levels) has today... run by elected officials whose only qualification to dictate how you live your life, what products you will buy, what industries will succeed and which will fail... is that they were able to get just enough people to vote for them.

    I disagree. The growing divide between the rich & poor and the erosion of the middle class isn't because government is too controlling -- it's the opposite. How is it that we have financial meltdown after financial meltdown? It's because those with "big voices" (big corp, wealthy) dictate the laws that govern us. They are the bread & butter for politicians on each side of the isle. In the end we end up with deregulation and compromised legislation that results in big corp and the wealthy legally gaming the system. The only thing that is dictating our lives is the media whether it be "reality" TV or Fox "News".

    If we all believed in unicorns and fairies the world would be a better place.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    dahat

    , DeathByVisualStudio wrote

    *snip*

    I disagree. The growing divide between the rich & poor and the erosion of the middle class isn't because government is too controlling -- it's the opposite. How is it that we have financial meltdown after financial meltdown?

    I suspect you were not paying attention to the specifics of the financial meltdown... many parts of which were a direct result of government influence and regulation.

    It's because those with "big voices" (big corp, wealthy) dictate the laws that govern us. They are the bread & butter for politicians on each side of the isle.

    You are actually supporting what I said... when you have a large and powerful government, there is more incentive to try to influence it... and those with more resources are likely to have more influence.

    Again... is the answer eliminating the money... or eliminating the incentive?

    In the end we end up with deregulation and compromised legislation that results in big corp and the wealthy legally gaming the system. The only thing that is dictating our lives is the media whether it be "reality" TV or Fox "News".

    Again... fix the system... of course much of what you say is what Ronald Reagan would call an  "alien and discredited theory":

    Since when do we in America believe that our society is made up of two diametrically opposed classes -- one rich, one poor -- both in a permanent state of conflict and neither able to get ahead except at the expense of the other? Since when do we in America accept this alien and discredited theory of social and class warfare? Since when do we in America endorse the politics of envy and division?

  • User profile image
    DeathBy​VisualStudio

    , dahat wrote

    *snip*

    I suspect you were not paying attention to the specifics of the financial meltdown... many parts of which were a direct result of government influence and regulation.

    Really? I wasn't paying attention? Well I'm glad you were.

    IMO it was government influence on the behest of big corp and the wealthy that leveraged weak regulations to gain advantage. Those that failed got bailouts. So the solution is to reduce regulations? That would sure cut down on the need for campaign contributions by big corp but would also create chaos as big corp would leverage our economy into the ground. Gone are the days when big corp and the wealthy understood that their has to be a balance, that they just can't loot everything. With the S&L scandal of the 90's, Enron, and now the most recent financial meltdown reduction in regulation will only create more of these meltdowns more frequently. Sure you get big money out of politics but you end up with an economic disaster.

    *snip*

    You are actually supporting what I said... when you have a large and powerful government, there is more incentive to try to influence it... and those with more resources are likely to have more influence.

    See above.

    Again... is the answer eliminating the money... or eliminating the incentive?

    So no lock on the door is better than a defective lock? If "eliminating the incentive" means "no regulation" than that's exactly what you mean.

    *snip*

    Again... fix the system... of course much of what you say is what Ronald Reagan would call an  "alien and discredited theory":

    LOL. It's the Regan era that ushered in this whole era of "trickle-down economics". His followers were the ones who at every economic meltdown, recessions, or other excuse would cry for breaks for big corp. Decade after decade they whittled down effective taxes (including loopholes) for big corp and the wealthy to all-time lows. These "job creators" have had 30 years to show us how trickle-down economics are supposed to benefit us but instead has proven that the divide between the rich & poor will only get larger and the middle class will continue to diminish. And if you believe them it's all because of lazy people looking for handouts.

    If we all believed in unicorns and fairies the world would be a better place.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    dahat

    , DeathByVisualStudio wrote

    *snip*

    Really? I wasn't paying attention? Well I'm glad you were.

    IMO it was government influence on the behest of big corp and the wealthy that leveraged weak regulations to gain advantage. Those that failed got bailouts. So the solution is to reduce regulations? That would sure cut down on the need for campaign contributions by big corp but would also create chaos as big corp would leverage our economy into the ground. Gone are the days when big corp and the wealthy understood that their has to be a balance, that they just can't loot everything. With the S&L scandal of the 90's, Enron, and now the most recent financial meltdown reduction in regulation will only create more of these meltdowns more frequently. Sure you get big money out of politics but you end up with an economic disaster.

    Re: S&L: Moral hazard is a %^#(&%#... and was enabled by the Feds.

    Whats that? They doubled down in the 90's and on into the 2000's... which in large part lead to where we are today?

    I could go on... but it'd be a waste.

    So no lock on the door is better than a defective lock? If "eliminating the incentive" means "no regulation" than that's exactly what you mean.

    Actually... yes... because depending on the defectiveness of the lock, you are creating a false illusion of security which can result not only in what you were trying to prevent... but wider spread issues as well.

    Example... some I've talked to claim that had the Federal Assault Weapons Ban still been in effect... then friday's shooting wouldn't have happened. What they fail to realize that the AWB was largely a pretty hollow law... and that the definition of an 'assault weapon' in the law was so vague that it was easy to make cosmetic changes and to be able to sell functionally the same firearm, even under the ban.

    Examples:

    • Can't have a pistol grip or telescoping stock? Use a thumbhole stock.
    • Can't have a bayonet mount? Doesn't apply to AR variants, and a quick tweak to the AK design makes it compliant.
    • Can't have a flash suppresser? So use a muzzle break instead.

    Know what the actual result of the AWB was? Higher prices on pre-ban firearms and magazines... and no actual related reduction in related crime... and consistent sales.

    Rather than try to write a perfect regulation or law (which assumes such a thing is possible without creating a minefield for those trying to comply with the law)... why not be very narrow in ones focus to try to focus on specific things... and only act when necessary, proper, and possible?

    LOL. It's the Regan era that ushered in this whole era of "trickle-down economics". His followers were the ones who at every economic meltdown, recessions, or other excuse would cry for breaks for big corp. Decade after decade they whittled down effective taxes (including loopholes) for big corp and the wealthy to all-time lows. These "job creators" have had 30 years to show us how trickle-down economics are supposed to benefit us but instead has proven that the divide between the rich & poor will only get larger and the middle class will continue to diminish. And if you believe them it's all because of lazy people looking for handouts.

    You must be pretty young... or generally naive as the Reagan ushered in one of the greatest periods of economic growth (affecting all people) that this nation has ever seen... a wave not only ridden by Bush-41 but also Clinton-42... however as pointed to above, some steps were taken to undermine what had been previously done.

    Given you are so keen on continuing this class warfare line of reasoning... I see no reason to continue to waste my time on someone who is beyond hope or help.

  • User profile image
    DeathBy​VisualStudio

    @dahat:

    Since you are so keen on providing solely the simpleton Republican view... I agree there is no reason to continue to waste my time on someone who is beyond hope or help.

    If we all believed in unicorns and fairies the world would be a better place.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    cbae

    , dahat wrote

    *snip*

    You must be pretty young... or generally naive as the Reagan ushered in one of the greatest periods of economic growth (affecting all people) that this nation has ever seen... a wave not only ridden by Bush-41 but also Clinton-42... however as pointed to above, some steps were taken to undermine what had been previously done.

    But you see this "greatest period of economic growth" was just a sham. Who did it really benefit?The average CEO now makes 400x the average salary of his employees. Wealth imbalance is higher than its been since before the Great Depression. The middle class is virtually extinct.

    And here's a reality check on Reagan:

    http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/02/05/142288/reagan-centennial/?mobile=nc

  • User profile image
    Proton2

    @cbae: A better source for information on Reagan:

     

    "...and as president, he created 18-million new jobs, net, while the entire European Union (except for the UK) created 1-million, and those in the public sector. He simplified taxes and sharply cut the rates. Claims that his job creation was mainly of "hamburger flippers" and pizza delivery drivers (honourable and necessary occupations, incidentally) was debunked by the fact that America enjoyed the greatest productivity increases in 40 years."

     

    http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/02/05/conrad-black-ronald-reagan-the-ultimate-upwardly-mobile-american/

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.