2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

[Rover]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

I think it's a fair point but only to some extent. We've seen time and time again that if you put out a hyper-detailed position paper your opponents will simply rip it to shreds, which distracts from the overall vision.

I want my think tanks telling me how to best soak the rich. It's enough for my presidential candidate to announce he favors soaking the rich, as distinct from the rest of the field who differ only in the degree to which they'll pucker up before fellating them. There is plenty of time for details after election, and of course those details will change a dozen times during the sausage-making process, so holding yourself to your campaign announced details is suicidal.

So I agree with you to the extent that, say, a candidate should say he favors replacing Obamacare with a single payer system. But as to the gory details of that system, that's something that will be fought over in the Oval Office and the cloak room, and there's no point in boxing yourself in before you get started.

See this is part of the problem for me. I need to know how realistic the guy is. That's the difference between a President who moves the ball downfield and one who doesn't. I don't need the guy to write the law and post it on his campaign website, but " how are you paying for this" isn't too much to ask. As I said before, if he doesn't fill in the blanks the Republicans will, and you know as well as I do the media will run with whatever they say about his plans unless he pushes back.

PS - I don't believe Glass-Steagall would have prevented the Great Recession. Not even close IMHO. Its just not that simple, and it misses the point that the greed of the American people themselves caused that recession, not some nefarious gubmint policy.

[mookie1995]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

The issue with higher education is the costs. Schools have been able to raise their prices outside of the constraint of inflation cause very few pay the bill. Many either get government grants or borrow and worry about repaying that after graduation.

A bully pulpit holder should pull the tax-exempt status from colleges unless they cut costs in half (along with professorial salaries, administrative salaries, etc).
In fact, how about we remove salaries as a tax deduction for businesses?
Make dividends and interest regular income?

Easy starting points.

[mookie1995]

PS - I don't believe Glass-Steagall would have prevented the Great Recession. Not even close IMHO. Its just not that simple, and it misses the point that the greed of the American people themselves caused that recession, not some nefarious gubmint policy.

Houses w/o deposit banks were allowed to go under Bear & Lehamn). Then the Jamie's of the world who had a bank attached went and milked out govment money to shield themselves.
But true, even with G/S they would have scared the Feds into bailing them out at some point.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

PS - I don't believe Glass-Steagall would have prevented the Great Recession. Not even close IMHO. Its just not that simple, and it misses the point that the greed of the American people themselves caused that recession, not some nefarious gubmint policy.

Sure it would have. It may not have prevented the crash, but it would have protected the Banks we care about (and homes and their values) and we would have been allowed to let the risk takers take the fall.

[St. Clown]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Houses w/o deposit banks were allowed to go under Bear & Lehamn). Then the Jamie's of the world who had a bank attached went and milked out govment money to shield themselves.
But true, even with G/S they would have scared the Feds into bailing them out at some point.

Yes and no on that, with regards to who was allowed to fail and who wasn't. If you listen to BoA, their former CEO states that they was pressured to purchase Meryll Lynch by the federal government, and then hung out to dry as they failed certain federal scrutiny tests because they had insufficient resources available to them due to purchasing Meryll.

[unofan]

Yes and no on that, with regards to who was allowed to fail and who wasn't. If you listen to BoA, their former CEO states that they was pressured to purchase Meryll Lynch by the federal government, and then hung out to dry as they failed certain federal scrutiny tests because they had insufficient resources available to them due to purchasing Meryll.

Boo farking Hoo. BoA is up there with the cable companies as far as being one of the worst companies in the country to deal with.

[St. Clown]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Boo farking Hoo. BoA is up there with the cable companies as far as being one of the worst companies in the country to deal with.

You don't like dealing with them (I've never had an interaction with them outside of pro-to-pro work), and so it's okay for the federal government to railroad the company's CEO out of his job? The whole ML acquisition is why he was ousted from his position. That's not right.

[unofan]

You don't like dealing with them (I've never had an interaction with them outside of pro-to-pro work), and so it's okay for the federal government to railroad the company's CEO out of his job? The whole ML acquisition is why he was ousted from his position. That's not right.

Yeah, sorry, I don't care when the devil gets burned by one of his own deals.

Bank of America may have gotten screwed on that one, but they've screwed so many people themselves that I really don't care. That's just the chicken coming home to roost.

[mookie1995]

Yes and no on that, with regards to who was allowed to fail and who wasn't. If you listen to BoA, their former CEO states that they was pressured to purchase Meryll Lynch by the federal government, and then hung out to dry as they failed certain federal scrutiny tests because they had insufficient resources available to them due to purchasing Meryll.

They should have negotiated better terms. (Plus you don't think Kenny Lewis is gonna make himself look bad, do you )

[mookie1995]

Sure it would have. It may not have prevented the crash, but it would have protected the Banks we care about (and homes and their values) and we would have been allowed to let the risk takers take the fall.

Home values were not going to be protected. Sorry

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Home values were not going to be protected. Sorry

I would argue they would have been through proxy. The problem with the crash was the "way" the banks were loaning out money. If the loan institutions had been separated from the risk takers then, I would argue, the high risk loan BS that went on never would have happened. Home values wouldn't have soared, but they likely wouldn't have crashed either.

The Banks were making so much money off of loan processing that they failed to even think about the validity of the loans themselves. That should be, and should have been a criminal act.

[Handyman]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Of course people didnt need to take out loans for houses they didnt need or couldnt afford. The banks were horrid, but none of this happens if people were smart enough to think for 5 seconds. (or you know, read the mortgage they sign) The average rube was the mark at the table, the guy who has never played poker before invited by his buddies to play who then wonders why he leaves with empty pockets.

That doesnt excuse what the banks did, but a fool and his money...

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

I would argue they would have been through proxy. The problem with the crash was the "way" the banks were loaning out money. If the loan institutions had been separated from the risk takers then, I would argue, the high risk loan BS that went on never would have happened. Home values wouldn't have soared, but they likely wouldn't have crashed either.

The Banks were making so much money off of loan processing that they failed to even think about the validity of the loans themselves. That should be, and should have been a criminal act.

Don't forget the government had a gun to their head to make them process the loan, 'cause War on Poverty and stuff.

[Rover]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Of course people didnt need to take out loans for houses they didnt need or couldnt afford. The banks were horrid, but none of this happens if people were smart enough to think for 5 seconds. (or you know, read the mortgage they sign) The average rube was the mark at the table, the guy who has never played poker before invited by his buddies to play who then wonders why he leaves with empty pockets.

That doesnt excuse what the banks did, but a fool and his money...

Thank you Handy (did I just say that?). Yes banks and the gubmint could have done better, but at the end of the day, nobody put a gun to your head and forced you to take out a loan you couldn't afford. The American people were along for the ride. Hell, they were driving the bus. That's why this recession is the deepest in 80 years, and the hardest to get out of. If you make 30K a year, or even 200K, maybe you can't afford to live in Bill Gates' neighborhood. Maybe you shouldn't borrow money to do so, even if someone is dumb enough to give you a loan (or doesn't care because they then package and sell it). I don't expect politicians to point out this truth, but we ought to not forget it.

But for the other factors, you can't pull an AIG anymore and take the opposite position of every single hedge out there with no collateral. Financial institutions also can't run entirely on short term loans - you are required to have enough liquid capital to function if you're getting squeezed. Getting back the point, with the understanding that the new laws in place have changed the landscape (going back to a previous time, there's no more Enron's in large part to Sarbanes-Oxley), what new changes does Bernie want? Break up big banks for example. How? What are they being asked to divest, and what is the goal?

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Thank you Handy (did I just say that?). Yes banks and the gubmint could have done better, but at the end of the day, nobody put a gun to your head and forced you to take out a loan you couldn't afford. The American people were along for the ride.

Except all the watchdog organizations from the SEC down to the ratings agencies and the financial media were in on the game. I don't blame most of the people for signing for a loan that all these "experts" were telling them they qualified for. None of the entities that were charged with regulating the industry did their job and the banks got away with outright fraud.

I'll grant you people were suckers, believing the banks' claims of the equivalent of a Nigerian prince scam, but at the end of the day you put the scam artist in jail, and none of the perps went to jail. Far from it, they walked away even richer by pocketing tax payer relief funds as bonuses, and they're free to do it again now. Moral hazard, baby. We should have lined up everybody in management for Goldman, JP Morgan Chase, BofA Merrill, and Citigroup against the wall at 11 Wall Street and applied a Second Amendment remedy. Not so much to punish the criminals, but to deter future misconduct.