HOT CRISIS!

[ex-ladylike.livejournal.com]

Comments

[xforge.livejournal.com]

Eeeeeyup.

[blueduck37.livejournal.com]

The worst part is that they haven't learned any lessons at all from their destruction of the economy (largely because the Bush/Paulson bailout allowed them to escape any repercussions for their actions... that's for the rest of us!). AIG is planning a new round of bonuses. And I read that (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/07/theyve_got_to_be_kidding.php) Morgan-Stanley is planning the same type of toxic asset repackaging that exploded this mess to begin with. Etc etc.

But we sure wouldn't want the government to institute any rules of regulations to prevent this sort of thing and keep our economy safe. That'd be socialism! Best to let the market regulate itself, which has obviously been very successful...

And remember-- money for bad banks = good! Money for health-care = bad! GOT IT?!

[jlc20thmaine.livejournal.com]

So you complain that the government intervention in the banking mess is pathetic but you want government intervention in health care and expect good results?

[blueduck37.livejournal.com]

Your reading comprehension skills are (once again (http://community.livejournal.com/politicartoons/1326608.html?thread=27101968#t27101968)) a mess. My point wasn't about the execution of these things (clearly, the banks are beyond satisfied with how the bailouts went for them), it was about a) whether they are justified, and b) the hypocrisy.

Let's tackle (a) first. As some people may be aware (I think it was in the papers), the U.S. economy, and subsequently the global economy, basically fucking imploded between 2007 and 2008, due to a number of factors, but largely by a series of fuckups by our nation's most respected banks and financial institutions. And rather than fixing/changing this system, the previous administration decided to try some tax rebates first and then followed up six months with a trillion-dollar giveaway ensuring that the system would not have to change at all. That was not right. And yet it was a GOP move, and was supported by conservatives (though retroactively, they claim otherwise now).

Health-care, on the other hand, is something we need to reform, and I believe only a public option (hey, there's that word again!) can provide the kick-to-the-ass the whole system to turn itself around. It's something the public is asking for too, unlike the bailouts, and it would actually benefit most Americans, unlike the bailouts (and the cost (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/yes-we-can/) would be about the same, but this time we'd have something to show for it). And yet, the GOP is vehemently against the very suggestion of this and oppose it... even though they have to pretend otherwise (http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/05/06/luntz-memo/).

The idea that we can spend $$$ to bail out the institutions that destroyed our economy but we can't spend $$$ to reform an increasingly fucked-up healthcare system is rank hypocrisy.

But again, I wasn't talking about the execution of these things. Hell, assuming health-care reform passes with a serious public option included (which it won't, because the insurance lobby is spending million$ a day to ensure it doesn't), I can only hope to be as satisfied with the results of it as the banks are with their bailout.

[jlc20thmaine.livejournal.com]

As to (a) not only our government, but just about all national governments had a hand in the implosion. This is not just a bank or financial institution fuck-up. And wasn't it Obama who wanted a bigger bail-out plan for the banks? And wasn't it a congress controlled by the democrats that passed the bail-out? Or maybe you forgot all that.

Health-care does need to be reformed, yet, the government inability to do anything right (see banking fiasco that you are upset about) proves that they shouldn't get invovled in health care. Unless of course you want it more fucked up which would make you argue for more government control, which would fuck it up even more, which would make you argue for more government control, which would fuck it up even more, ... Which is the point I made that you couldn't comprehend.

Oh yeah, you were talking about the execution of theses things:"The worst part is that they haven't learned any lessons at all from their destruction of the economy (largely because the Bush/Paulson bailout allowed them to escape any repercussions for their actions... that's for the rest of us!). AIG is planning a new round of bonuses. And I read that Morgan-Stanley is planning the same type of toxic asset repackaging that exploded this mess to begin with. Etc etc.

But we sure wouldn't want the government to institute any rules of regulations to prevent this sort of thing and keep our economy safe. That'd be socialism! Best to let the market regulate itself, which has obviously been very successful..."

[blueduck37.livejournal.com]

As to (a) not only our government, but just about all national governments had a hand in the implosion.

Only to this extent (http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/05/business/congress-passes-wide-ranging-bill-easing-bank-laws.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1&emc=eta1), sure. (note that 4th paragraph)

This is not just a bank or financial institution fuck-up.

Yes, it was. This is not disputable. At all (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_2000s_recession).

And wasn't it a congress controlled by the democrats that passed the bail-out? Or maybe you forgot all that.

No, I actually have a great memory. So much so that I do, in fact, remember that the bailout was orchestrated by President Bush and Hank Paulson... and that congressional Democrats were urging caution and debate on the matter only to be attacked by the conservative/GOP establishment (http://politics4geekz.blogspot.com/2008/09/bailout-please.html) for killing the economy with their delay in giving Bush what he wanted.

Health-care does need to be reformed

Oh cool. You did get the memo (http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/05/06/luntz-memo/) then.

It is my belief, of course, than nothing short enough a solid public option plan (I keep highlighting that word... fun!) will lead to any kind of reform. The idea that the health-care industry, insurance companies, etc, want reform and can be coaxed into it with some kind words and window dressing is naive. We need a real substantive change.

But we'll have to disagree there it seems.

The good news for you? Thanks to heavy lobbyist efforts keeping the "blue dog" Dems in their pockets, and Obama's refusal to play hardball with his own party members, it is more likely than not that your side of this debate will win out. So, kudos. Reform will be killed in the crib.

Oh yeah, you were talking about the execution of theses things

Saying that the bailouts prevented accountability on the banks' part has nothing to with the execution. I'm not sure where you get that at all. And I'd be happy to let a dozen look at my original post and see who they agree with there.

Again, the banks are VERY satisfied with how the bailouts worked for them (so much so that they're back to their old tricks 6-9 months later). I can only hope to be as satisfied with health-care reform as the banks have been with the bailouts.

[donolectic.livejournal.com]

Not only is your snark equisite, your patience is commendable.

[jlc20thmaine.livejournal.com]

4th paragraph: The decision to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 provoked dire warnings from a handful of dissenters that the deregulation of Wall Street would someday wreak havoc on the nation's financial system. The original idea behind Glass-Steagall was that separation between bankers and brokers would reduce the potential conflicts of interest that were thought to have contributed to the speculative stock frenzy before the Depression.

WOW!!! wiki? Really!!! How stupid are you? Don't answer we already know the extreme depths of your stupidity

The rest of your comment is just pure bullshit. Which goes to prove my underlying point.

SO..........

THANK YOU

THANK YOU

THANK YOU

You have proven that you ony only fail to understand the underlying problem of the banking/financial mess, but you miserably fail to understand how government fucks things up.

Please try again

[blueduck37.livejournal.com]

4th paragraph: The decision to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 provoked dire warnings from a handful of dissenters that the deregulation of Wall Street would someday wreak havoc on the nation's financial system. The original idea behind Glass-Steagall was that separation between bankers and brokers would reduce the potential conflicts of interest that were thought to have contributed to the speculative stock frenzy before the Depression.

Right. And those handful of dissenters turned out to be prescient and accurate.

WOW!!! wiki? Really!!! How stupid are you? Don't answer we already know the extreme depths of your stupidity

Thank you for (not) refuting the facts of my argument.

[jlc20thmaine.livejournal.com]

That 4th paragraph was going to refute my claim? That this is not just a national bank or financial institution fuck-up as you think?. Did nothing happen between 1933 and today or at least 2007?

And wasn't it Obama who wanted a bigger bail-out plan for the banks? And wasn't it a congress controlled by the democrats that passed the bail-out? Or maybe you forgot all that. You forgot to answer these questions

Go back and read what you originally wrote.

Thank you for not being able to comprehend the simple basic uinderlying concept og this entire discussion.

Thank you for wearing your stupidity and ignorance on your sleve.

[blueduck37.livejournal.com]

Now you are just nitpicking, which means the bulk of what I have written to date must be on the nose.

That 4th paragraph was going to refute my claim?

Yes. This was primarily a fuckup of banks and financial institutions and the facts are out there to verify that... facts that are not questioned by any serious person in a position of consequence. But I did say that gov't was a fault only to this extent, which was their role in deregulating said institutions. Again, that 1999 NY Times article on the repeal of Glass-Steagal says a lot in hindsight.

You forgot to answer these questions

I responded to this. You ignored it. Fair enough.

Thank you for wearing your stupidity and ignorance on your sleve.

I do not wear anything on my sleve.

[syndicalist.livejournal.com]

Anyone who thinks that the current economic catastrophe means we need LESS regulation of corporations (as lj user=jlc20thmaine> seems to) is living on Mars.

The econ. mess was not a product of govt., except to the extent it enabled the northeastern finance sector to pull the economy down in flames without regulating it.

The Great Recession was caused by the housing bubble, driven by institutions like Beazer Homes, Countrywide, and the creation of exotic finance instruments like credit default swaps, Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs), and the complicity of the private, for-profit ratings firms like Moody's, Standard and Poor's, etc., who rated toxic assets with AAA ratings when they were, well, toxic.

The US government was not there doing this. The government did, however, not perform well as a watchdog of this brewing catastrophe.

Good luck trying to get reality to fit into your simplistic "Private sector = good/public sector=bad" Manichean universe. And have fun on Mars.

[blueduck37.livejournal.com]

PS- Matt Taibbi's article (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/28816321/the_great_american_bubble_machine) on Goldman-Sachs is a must-read.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Bubbles. Three bubbles. Thanks for that link.

[star-white.livejournal.com]

Hummm so if suddenly the federal government decides to stop giving bail outs, because this dependency is assumed to be temporary but what if it is not, will the resulting banking collapse be what should have happened in the first place prior to any trillions being handed over never to be seen again?

[inibo.livejournal.com]

Yes.

Especially the "should have happened in the first place" part.

[adrunkencadence.livejournal.com]

It's too big to fail! (I say 'let'em sink')