Questioning Obama's Critics: Why the Dislike?

[Astronuc]

I believe the ex post facto rule means that Congress or the states cannot retroactivley criminalize an action that was not illegal at the time, i.e. a law may not retroactively change the legality of some action, or change the punishment, i.e. not increase the punishment for an illegal action.

Taxes (an administrative matter) apparently do not come under the restriction of ex post facto.

What I heard first was that the people responsible for the failure were fired. Then I heard that the persons receiving some of these bonuses were involved in creating the situation and that is why they want them around because their knowledge of what was done will help undo the problem. Now I'm not sure if these people were just around to see what happened in the devision or if they were directly involved in the decision making process.

That is what I was thinking this morning, but we on the outside simply do not know.

Congress should not act rashly in this matter, otherwise they are punishing people for something in which they are not involved. The government (Treasury, etc) should have placed terms, conditions and restrictions on any funds given to any company. The government should not be micromanaging the financial companies.

 

[D H]

The issue here isn't so much that this proposed tax bill is an ex post facto law but that it is a bill of attainder. It punishes a very specific group of people.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Taxes (an administrative matter) apparently do not come under the restriction of ex post facto.

Maybe, maybe not. US v. Carlton suggests that Congress can do whatever the heck it wants with taxes - the standard for a retroactive tax is a "legitimate legislative purpose" and since raising taxes is a power explicitly given to Congress in the Constitution, by definition anything that Congress says must be for a "legitimate legislative purpose."

However, if one goes all the way back to Calder v. Bull, which is where the distinction between "ex post facto" laws (unconstitutional) and "retroactive" laws (constitutional) was first drawn, one of the considerations is whether the intent of Congress was punitive or not. In this case, it's pretty clear that Congress' intent is punitive. So a clever lawyer would argue that all the case law on taxation thus far as not relevant, since Congress was not trying to punish specific individuals, and in this case they are.

 

[LowlyPion]

So a clever lawyer would argue that all the case law on taxation thus far as not relevant, since Congress was not trying to punish specific individuals, and in this case they are.

Unfortunately a clever lawyer would have to identify his clients too. I look forward to seeing which of the AIG executives have the chutzpah to file a suit. I think this is a poison apple, if they try to keep it.

Still remaining is the opportunity for the government to sue the executives by voiding the contracts.

I would think any executive - given the horrendous performance of the division they are seeking to profit from - would be well advised to abandon these bonuses. Most especially those that would at the same time have accepted "Retention Bonuses" and departed.

 

[turbo]

Still remaining is the opportunity for the government to sue the executives by voiding the contracts.

There is legal precendent for this, since the bonuses amounted to what is known in legal terms as "unjust enrichment". In other words, the executives took money that they did not earn, and taxpayers lost that money with no input on our part. Since we own 80% of AIG, we are entitled to demand accountability. The $165M cannot begin to compare to the risks assumed by the taxpayers, but it's not exactly peanuts either.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The issue here isn't so much that this proposed tax bill is an ex post facto law but that it is a bill of attainder. It punishes a very specific group of people.

A bill of attainder is usually interpreted to mean a legislative act declaring people guilty of some crime. Nevertheless, the fact that this is intended to be punitive may be troublesome, as that is one of the ways "retroactive" laws are distinguished from "ex post facto" laws.

 

[chemisttree]

There is legal precendent for this, since the bonuses amounted to what is known in legal terms as "unjust enrichment". In other words, the executives took money that they did not earn, and taxpayers lost that money with no input on our part. Since we own 80% of AIG, we are entitled to demand accountability. The $165M cannot begin to compare to the risks assumed by the taxpayers, but it's not exactly peanuts either.

A definition of Unjust Enrichment.

Unjust enrichment means when a person unfairly gets a benefit by chance, mistake or another's misfortune for which the one enriched has not paid or worked and morally and ethically should not keep. A person who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another must legally return the unfairly kept money or benefits. Unjust enrichment is an equitable doctrine applied in the absence of a contract and used to prevent one person from being unjustly enriched at another's expense.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/u/unjust-enrichment/

AIG should have been allowed to die. It will... eventually.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

There is legal precendent for this, since the bonuses amounted to what is known in legal terms as "unjust enrichment". In other words, the executives took money that they did not earn, and taxpayers lost that money with no input on our part. Since we own 80% of AIG, we are entitled to demand accountability. The $165M cannot begin to compare to the risks assumed by the taxpayers, but it's not exactly peanuts either.

From what I have read to prove unjust enrichment in the US it would have to be proved that these people did not fulfill their contracts. Simply because the company failed does not mean they did not fulfill their contracts. Ballplayers (another group of people who are often over paid in my opinion) can be hired on with a contract paying them millions for the year then the team may lose all of its games that year, lose contracts due to this, ect but that doesn't mean (legally) that the player has been unjustly enriched if they have fulfilled their contract. We are told that the people who were actually responsible for the failure of AIG have been fired. Unfortunately we don't really know just how true that is.

I agree that these people are over paid and likely don't deserve this money. You are not someone I would say does not respect merit based pay or paying an employee enough for their level of talent or expertise. I just think, based on my understanding of it, that particular legal argument is shakey at best. We would need a more european definition of unjust enrichment here in the US for it to work. In fact, as I noted earlier, if the company received the services from their employees that were stipulated in their contract and refused to hold to their end of the contract that would be (by US legal definition) unjust enrichment.

 

[Astronuc]

Senate Republicans brake rush to tax AIG bonuses
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090320/ap_on_bi_ge/aig_bonuses

Yes! I agree with Kyl on this one.

WASHINGTON – Senate Republicans are drawing out a flap that has made the Obama administration squirm, applying the brakes to Democratic attempts to quickly tax away most of the bonuses at troubled insurance giant AIG and other bailed-out companies.

Sen. Jon Kyl, the Republicans' vote counter, blocked Democratic efforts Thursday evening to bring up the Senate version of the tax bill to recoup most of the $165 million paid out by AIG last weekend and other bonuses in 2009. The House had swiftly approved its version of the bill earlier in the day.

By rushing, Kyl said, Democrats were letting populist outrage trump informed decision making in the Senate, which is supposed to be insulated from the pressures of public passion.

"I don't believe that Congress should rush to pass yet another piece of hastily crafted legislation in this very toxic atmosphere, at least without understanding the facts and the potential unintended consequences," Kyl said on the Senate floor. "Frankly, I think that's how we got into the current mess."

I need a thumbs up smiley on this one.

I think democrats rushed to judgement in the heat of the moment, and because the voters are angry, and the congress persons want to look good in 2010.

If Libby has asked that people give back the bonus(es) and people have voluntarily done so, then I don't think congress should intervene, especially retroactively.

Moving forward, if congress wants to put controls on 'future' assistance, then fine.

 

[rootX]

Some new sources (I think that was Fox) are saying that government knew about AIG plans to provide bonuses many months ago.
Other sources say that Nancy Pelosi blamed Republicans not considering this scenario. Edit: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ca...osi_dont_blame_us_for_aig_m.html?hpid=topnews (similar)
"The CEO compensation issues were completely resisted by the Bush administration, so we are sweeping up after them,"
(I will try to find the sources)

But, AIG isn't run by idiots who can't comprehend the current crisis which makes me think if there are some political or other hidden motives behind giving away bonuses.

 

[LowlyPion]

The whole tax the bonuses back to the stone age approach is hastily slapped together it's true, but it serves a purpose of pinning the Republicans into a difficult situation.

They vote for it, then here they are ideologically voting for tax increases after all after all their chirping about lowering them. Voting against it paints them with the slop mop of protecting AIG executive greed - clearly a very unpopular idea to get caught wearing.

Obama on the other hand enjoys the opportunity of leading the country from the band stand in a chorus of indignation over greed and the unfettered compensation insanity that has overtaken the under-regulated free markets - a regulation authority that the Bush administration not only allowed to wither by budgetary underfunding, but to blossom into the current debilitating recession.

Hate Obama? Heck he's surfing the waves while the Republicans are getting swallowed by constant reminders of their past leadership failures. It's looking like the Republicans aren't hating him so much as greenly envious of his balance and command of the issues.

 

[WheelsRCool]

The whole tax the bonuses back to the stone age approach is hastily slapped together it's true, but it serves a purpose of pinning the Republicans into a difficult situation.

They vote for it, then here they are ideologically voting for tax increases after all after all their chirping about lowering them. Voting against it paints them with the slop mop of protecting AIG executive greed - clearly a very unpopular idea to get caught wearing.

Actually, it shows them voting against something that is arguably unconstitutional.

Obama on the other hand enjoys the opportunity of leading the country from the band stand in a chorus of indignation over greed and the unfettered compensation insanity that has overtaken the under-regulated free markets - a regulation authority that the Bush administration not only allowed to wither by budgetary underfunding, but to blossom into the current debilitating recession.

These bonuses were written into the so-called "stimulus" bill the Congress never read and Obama signed.

And the notion that the free markets are under-regulated is ridiculous. They are plenty regulated, even over-regulated in quite a few areas.

And no, the Bush Administration did not let regulation whither. Regulation was increased under Bush with the Sarbannes-Oxley Act of 2002 and the Bush Administration tried repeatedly to bring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under more stringent regulations, which was stonewalled by the Democrats.

Fannie/Freddie were infested with the Democrats, and the Democrats swore up and down that those institutions were plenty solvent.

Then they collapse and play a huge role in the current problems. That is just fact.

The notion that a highly-regulated economy would have avoided this type of problem is shattered by what happened to the Japanese in the 1980s, with their "industrial-planned" economy, where the Japanese government played a very strong role in "managing" their economy.

It sure didn't stop their huge real-estate bust that practically brought down their economy (they nationalized their banks).

The main problem with the current crises that makes it so widespread is that the financial system decided to tie the global economy to the U.S. real-estate market.

And normally, the U.S. real-estate market would have been fine, at most any "correction" in it would have been minor. But because of various legislation from the Democrats that forced banks to lower their lending standards or face retribution, along with the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates low, along with people living beyond their means, a real-estate bubble formed, which then burst, causing the current crises.

Hate Obama? Heck he's surfing the waves while the Republicans are getting swallowed by constant reminders of their past leadership failures. It's looking like the Republicans aren't hating him so much as greenly envious of his balance and command of the issues.

Barack Obama hs no command whatsoever of the issues. He is nothing but an arrogant, ignorant idiot. That isn't even a point of debate anymore. It is quite amazing how fast his ratings have dropped right now. He has no clue what he's doing with the economy or with foreign policy, as evidenced by his bumbling with Russia, his bumbling with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and his ridiculous weak-kneed appeal to the Iranian regime.

 

[Cyrus]

And the notion that the free markets are under-regulated is ridiculous. They are plenty regulated, even over-regulated in quite a few areas.

From what I'm gathering from CSPAN radio, the guests have said that it was the highly unregulated (derivatives?) that basically allowed high risk (things) to be swapped.

So, saying that the markets are 'plenty regulated' really is meaningless. More specifically, could you show that the (derivatives?) which was responsible for this problem was 'highly regulated.

*Note: If its not derivatives, please fill in the blank. I can't remember the term off hand right now.*

Barack Obama hs no command whatsoever of the issues. He is nothing but an arrogant, ignorant idiot. That isn't even a point of debate anymore.

Mmmmmm...?

He has no clue what he's doing with the economy or with foreign policy, as evidenced by his bumbling with Russia, his bumbling with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and his ridiculous weak-kneed appeal to the Iranian regime.

I wouldn't agree with your second statement. My question to you is: would you rather he talk a big talk about starting a war with them? Also, what is your familiarity with Middle Eastern Culture and/or politics?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Mmmmmm...?

It doesn't even deserve that response. Someone here watches far too much Fox Noise.

 

[WheelsRCool]

From what I'm gathering from CSPAN radio, the guests have said that it was the highly unregulated (derivatives?) that basically allowed high risk (things) to be swapped.

You think the Federal government has the know-how on how to regulate something like derivatives? They can't even keep an eye on AIG right now.

But, I am talking about the free-markets in general. The financial markets I have said before that certain areas may need more regulation, others less. It depends. That's an incredibly complex area, and just blaming it on "deregulation" is wrong and "overregulation" is wrong.

However, the political Left is using it as an excuse to try and claim that we essentially need to go back to the highly-regulated version we had prior to the 1980s that worked horribly and as an excuse to just radically expand the size and power of the government.

So, saying that the markets are 'plenty regulated' really is meaningless. More specifically, could you show that the (derivatives?) which was responsible for this problem was 'highly regulated.

The free-market overall, is very regulated. All these magazines claiming, "The end of laissez-faire..." we haven't had anything close to laissez-faire since the end of the 1920s.

I wouldn't agree with your second statement. My question to you is: would you rather he talk a big talk about starting a war with them? Also, what is your familiarity with Middle Eastern Culture and/or politics?

No, I would rather him realize that you cannot appease or "negotiate" with a government whose ideology abhors weakness of any kind that they see (and they perceive him as weak), that views the United States as morally corrupt and the Great Satan, that despises Israel and anyone who supports Israel and wants to destroy Israel, and whose religion essentially says that in order to bring forth their Messiah, they must bring chaos upon this world and destroy Israel.

 

[WheelsRCool]

It doesn't even deserve that response. Someone here watches far too much Fox Noise.

Ahh, the old "Fox News" claim

Barack Obama has no grasp of the issues. He is highly ignorant, and ARROGANT, on the economy and on foreign policy and he is proving that every day. You cannot have a policy of raising taxes, enacting carbon taxes, increasing regulations, union card check, talk down to Wall Street constantly, claim this is the worst recession since the Great Depression, and then plan to spend trillions of dollars in the midst of an economic crises on trying to turn the United States into a European-style social democracy, and claim you have a clue what you're talking about. He is spending the United States into the ground with an un-sustainable budget.

None of these policies work. They do not work in the cities they are applied in, the states they are applied in, or the countries they are applied in, and they didn't work when they were applied before in the UK or the United States.

Labour Party ran the UK into the ground by the 1970s, until the conservative party came and freed the economy back up, and now the Labour party is slowly, but surly, re-doing the same there.

Big government, high-tax policies ran the U.S. economy into the ground in the 1970s, until we freed up the economy then.

He has no idea about education. His plan is to essentially throw more money at the problem (just did in Detroit, which we have seen fails repeatedly). Education will NEVER be fixed until the money stops flowing to the teacher's unions and instead actually flows to the teachers and students, and the teachers can also actually teach.

He has no idea about alternative energy as none of those programs are viable without some MAJOR advancements, like on the scale of what the microprocessor did for computers and he has no clue about healthcare, about how to give it to everyone or the massive cost it will provide, or the massive bureaucracy that will end up being developed to support a universal system.

And he seems to think the current crises is caused by healthcare.

He was outright rude to PM Gordon Brown of the UK, he did a rather amateurish act with sending that letter to Russia, and he actually thinks we can appease the Iranians. They do not care about him or the U.S. Their main goal is destruction of Israel. What he is essentially saying to them is, "You have won, let's talk." That doesn't work. It never has.

Of course, just as Hitler never would start World War II, the Soviet Union never would try to overtake all of Europe (they were planning to), terrorists would never smash aircraft into skyscrapers, Iran will never do anything like lob a nuke into Saudi Arabia, shut down the oil flow from there, and send the world economy spiraling into a depression overnight, until it actually happens, but by then it will be too late.

The PEOPLE of Iran are fine, but the regime in charge over there right now, is dangerous.

 

[Cyrus]

You think the Federal government has the know-how on how to regulate something like derivatives? They can't even keep an eye on AIG right now.

Did I say they did?

But, I am talking about the free-markets in general. The financial markets I have said before that certain areas may need more regulation, others less. It depends. That's an incredibly complex area, and just blaming it on "deregulation" is wrong and "overregulation" is wrong.

I assume by blaming it on 'x' and 'y' you mean the poster you were responding to in your post (lowlypion).

More to the point though, my understanding from watching CSPAN is that it was the high risk stuff that started the big mess (well, a large part of it at least). So, I don't understand what 'free-markets in general', has to do with the problem. Could you more specifically say how it was 'over regulated', as you say, concerning the problem I mentioned.

However, the political Left is using it as an excuse to try and claim that we essentially need to go back to the highly-regulated version we had prior to the 1980s that worked horribly and as an excuse to just radically expand the size and power of the government.

Well, I think economic experts are saying otherwise. At least the onces on CSPAN have said otherwise.

No, I would rather him realize that you cannot appease or "negotiate" with a government whose ideology abhors weakness of any kind that they see (and they perceive him as weak), that views the United States as morally corrupt and the Great Satan, that despises Israel and anyone who supports Israel and wants to destroy Israel, and whose religion essentially says that in order to bring forth their Messiah, they must bring chaos upon this world and destroy Israel.

Mmmmmmm...

Im curious, where do you read this stuff? I know its not from a book...

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You think the Federal government has the know-how on how to regulate something like derivatives? They can't even keep an eye on AIG right now.

But, I am talking about the free-markets in general. The financial markets I have said before that certain areas may need more regulation, others less. It depends. That's an incredibly complex area, and just blaming it on "deregulation" is wrong and "overregulation" is wrong.

However, the political Left is using it as an excuse to try and claim that we essentially need to go back to the highly-regulated version we had prior to the 1980s that worked horribly and as an excuse to just radically expand the size and power of the government.

If the mortgage companies gave out bad loans like candy they would have buried themselves. The reason they did it and made money off of it is deregulation that assisted them in pawning off the bad loans on other financial institutions.

 

[Cyrus]

Of course, just as Hitler never would start World War II, the Soviet Union never would try to overtake all of Europe (they were planning to), terrorists would never smash aircraft into skyscrapers, Iran will never do anything like lob a nuke into Saudi Arabia, shut down the oil flow from there, and send the world economy spiraling into a depression overnight, until it actually happens, but by then it will be too late.

The PEOPLE of Iran are fine, but the regime in charge over there right now, is dangerous.

Why would the Iranian government do something that would lead to their instantaneous loss of political power... Does that even add up?

 

[WheelsRCool]

Did I say they did?

Nope.

I assume by blaming it on 'x' and 'y' you mean the poster you were responding to in your post (lowlypion).

Folks in general who make the claim.

More to the point though, my understanding from watching CSPAN is that it was the high risk stuff that started the big mess (well, a large part of it at least). So, I don't understand what 'free-markets in general', has to do with the problem. Could you more specifically say how it was 'over regulated', as you say, concerning the problem I mentioned.

The current attitude among quite a few is that the "conservative model" of deregulation, low taxes, etc...that we have followed for the past twenty-nine years has been "disproven." I disagree with that completely, as I do not see how the alternative works at all or how the "conservative model" has been disproven even.

However, this isn't to say that the deregulation in the financial markets doesn't share some of the blame, because although in the financial markets it created a lot of good, it also seems to have led to the creation of these very high-risk and complicated financial instruments which the creators though spread risk and perhaps individually they did, but altogether all it has led to was connecting the global financial system to our housing market.

It seems to have created twenty years of prosperity, then in 2000, about seven years of artificialy prosperity.

By "free markets" in general, I mean the attitude thus is that free-marketeers are too radically pro-free market, that their idea "doesn't work," and we need a "balance" between government and the market, with government "watching" the markets, etc...my point is that the free-market itself, for the most part, works fine. There has been no "failure" of it in the wider economy. The big problem is how to fix the bad things caused by the market in the financial sector, without undoing all of the good things (and also figuring out specifically what was done because of the market and what was done by legislation). But the multitude of other industries are functioning fine, it's just the financial sector is like a utility.

Otherwise, we have no excuse to grandly enlarge government, taxes, spending, etc...

The other thing is, on the individual level as well, people ignored the "conservative model" of savings, investment, proper budgeting, etc...and spent, spent, spent. Under President Bush and the Republicans, we also spent money like crazy. Bush was no fiscal conservative.

These things must be ended, not continued. People need to learn to live within their means and the government needs to learn to spend within its means. We need to keep taxes low, regulations light, but effective, government good and limited, follow sound fiscal policy, and be smart as a nation. More government is not the answer.

Well, I think economic experts are saying otherwise. At least the onces on CSPAN have said otherwise.

These particular "experts" are politically biased towards one way, and they need to take a look at history, considering government's very bad record. Government is large enough as it is, and inept as it is.

We tried the Keynesian-style economics in which government plays a very strong hand in the economy and it didn't work out well. We also to an extent tried it with the housing market, which helped contribute to this crises (legislation, Fannie/Freddie for example). And Japan tried it.

They put a profound faith in government to be able to do things, and not only that, but to actually maintain a "balance." The nature of a government enterprise is to grow and grow and grow, thus infringing more and more on the private sector and freedoms. Government is a necessary evil, but an evil nonetheless and it must be watched like a hawk.

Mmmmmmm...

Im curious, where do you read this stuff? I know its not from a book...

Various books. A recent one is: They Must Be Stopped by Brigitte Gabriel

If the mortgage companies gave out bad loans like candy they would have buried themselves. The reason they did it and made money off of it is deregulation that assisted them in pawning off the bad loans on other financial institutions.

Depends, because they might have thought if they go under, the government would bail them out. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac seemed to have no problem doing it. They also did it because the system got set up where they and the banks could sell off loans to Wall Street who then sliced them up, packaged them up, and sold them to various financial institutions around the world. Legislation also played a role in this as well.

However, even if deregulation played a role, just layering on regulation isn't going to fix the problem. We have to keep in mind all of the good things deregulation led to, through the development of finance, and then find the bad things, and work specifically to fix those bad things with GOOD regulation, and that's if the regulation will work.

Why would the Iranian government do something that would lead to their instantaneous loss of political power... Does that even add up?

You are assuming they are a logical-minded government that just wants to practice their religion in peace or something.

Their religion calls for them to create chaos. If you are a religious fanatic hellbent on destruction, I don't think you are too concerned about loss of political power.

The terrorists blowing themselves up have little problem with their immediate loss of life.

But let's assume they are just blustering. If so, then taking a strong, firm stance against them is not going to lead to any war. As you said, if they do not want to lose political power, they will become appeasement-minded.

That's what happened with the Soviet Union. They used to be very forceful, aggressive, etc...with the U.S. throughout the entire Cold War. Kruschev used to talk about how he'd nuclear bomb here and nuclear bomb there and the Warsaw Pact nations were actually shocked that the U.S. believed him. Until Reagan came and talked very forceful and bluntly towards them. He understood that the Soviet Union could never peacefully co-exist with the U.S., and had to be destroyed (because conquest was built into the Soviet system; the Soviet "Union" itself was an example of conquest, it was Russia, the master nation, holding together a bunch of weaker nations via military force).

He was right, and so the Soviets changed their tune and brought forth Gorbachev, a soft-liner (not of the Soviet hardliners who had controlled things for decades) who tried to "negotiate" with Reagan. Reagan spent the Soviets into oblivion, and their so-called "union" then collapsed in 1992.

So if the Iranians are truly not meaning to cause any harm, or if they truly want to remain in power, that will become pretty apparent if the U.S. maintains a strong stance towards them.

OTOH, if the U.S. acts weak towards them, they will interpret this as the Soviets did, and act forceful and aggressive.

And if they really intend to do harm, the latter is a dangerous way to handle them, because in their culture they abhor weakness and will see it as a defeatist attitude on the part of the U.S.

Remember, countries are headed by people. If the school yard bully wants to bully you, acting weak won't stop him. Acting strong likely will, but if he will attack you even if you stand up to him, he most definitely will if you cower in front of him.

Same thing applied to crowds of people. Riot control police tried tactics of being "friendly" towards rough crowds, in the idea that being aggressive would only stir up the crowd, while being friendly would keep things in control.

This usually resulted in the riot police getting the crap kicked out of them, for lack of better terms.

The riot control police who work best are those that have a reputation not to be messed with.

Countries are no different, especially these ones headed up by bully-like dictators. You act weak with them, they act forceful and bully-like back. You act strong and firm with them and they will be much more careful. And if they still act bully-like, you know they most definitely would act bad if you act weak to them.

No one knows for sure if Neville Chamberlain had stood up to Hitler, if Hitler would have backed down, but he might have. We know for sure acting soft sure didn't stop him.

 

[Cyrus]

Nope.



Folks in general who make the claim.



The current attitude among quite a few is that the "conservative model" of deregulation, low taxes, etc...that we have followed for the past twenty-nine years has been "disproven." I disagree with that completely, as I do not see how the alternative works at all or how the "conservative model" has been disproven even.

However, this isn't to say that the deregulation in the financial markets doesn't share some of the blame, because although in the financial markets it created a lot of good, it also seems to have led to the creation of these very high-risk and complicated financial instruments which the creators though spread risk and perhaps individually they did, but altogether all it has led to was connecting the global financial system to our housing market.

It seems to have created twenty years of prosperity, then in 2000, about seven years of artificialy prosperity.

By "free markets" in general, I mean the attitude thus is that free-marketeers are too radically pro-free market, that their idea "doesn't work," and we need a "balance" between government and the market, with government "watching" the markets, etc...my point is that the free-market itself, for the most part, works fine. There has been no "failure" of it in the wider economy. The big problem is how to fix the bad things caused by the market in the financial sector, without undoing all of the good things (and also figuring out specifically what was done because of the market and what was done by legislation). But the multitude of other industries are functioning fine, it's just the financial sector is like a utility.

Otherwise, we have no excuse to grandly enlarge government, taxes, spending, etc...

The other thing is, on the individual level as well, people ignored the "conservative model" of savings, investment, proper budgeting, etc...and spent, spent, spent. Under President Bush and the Republicans, we also spent money like crazy. Bush was no fiscal conservative.

These things must be ended, not continued. People need to learn to live within their means, the government needs to learn to spend within its means.



These particular "experts" are politically biased towards one way, and they need to take a look at history, considering government's very bad record. Government is large enough as it is, and inept as it is.

We tried the Keynesian-style economics in which government plays a very strong hand in the economy and it didn't work out well. We also to an extent tried it with the housing market, which helped contribute to this crises (legislation, Fannie/Freddie for example). And Japan tried it.

They put a profound faith in government to be able to do things, and not only that, but to actually maintain a "balance." The nature of a government enterprise is to grow and grow and grow, thus infringing more and more on the private sector and freedoms. Government is a necessary evil, but an evil nonetheless and it must be watched like a hawk.



Various books. A recent one is: They Must Be Stopped by Brigitte Gabriel



Depends, because they might have thought if they go under, the government would bail them out. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac seemed to have no problem doing it. They also did it because the system got set up where they and the banks could sell off loans to Wall Street who then sliced them up, packaged them up, and sold them to various financial institutions around the world. Legislation also played a role in this as well.

However, even if deregulation played a role, just layering on regulation isn't going to fix the problem. We have to keep in mind all of the good things deregulation led to, through the development of finance, and then find the bad things, and work specifically to fix those bad things with GOOD regulation, and that's if the regulation will work.



You are assuming they are a logical-minded government that just wants to practice their religion in peace or something.

Their religion calls for them to create chaos. If you are a religious fanatic hellbent on destruction, I don't think you are too concerned about loss of political power.

The terrorists blowing themselves up have little problem with their immediate loss of life.

I wouldn't agree that they are 'hell bent on distruction'. I would ask you to provide one example of when they did anything distructive. However, I would say they are trying to gain a strong influence in the region.

Hell bent...mmmmmmmmmm...no.

Their government is much more savy than you give them credit.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

However, even if deregulation played a role, just layering on regulation isn't going to fix the problem. We have to keep in mind all of the good things deregulation led to, through the development of finance, and then find the bad things, and work specifically to fix those bad things with GOOD regulation, and that's if the regulation will work.

Yes, deregulation played a role. Dems that blame it all on deregulation are generalizing but Reps that say it played no role are either misinformed or lying. I'm not demonizing deregulation, only pointing out that it was in fact certain bits of deregulation that led to the profitability(short term) of giving out bad loans which created the problem.

 

[turbo]

Barack Obama hs no command whatsoever of the issues. He is nothing but an arrogant, ignorant idiot. That isn't even a point of debate anymore. It is quite amazing how fast his ratings have dropped right now. He has no clue what he's doing with the economy or with foreign policy, as evidenced by his bumbling with Russia, his bumbling with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and his ridiculous weak-kneed appeal to the Iranian regime.

Let's see some citations. You act as if he is approaching W's "favorable" ratings. We all know that's not the case, so where are you getting your opinions?

 

[turbo]

No, I would rather him realize that you cannot appease or "negotiate" with a government whose ideology abhors weakness of any kind that they see (and they perceive him as weak), that views the United States as morally corrupt and the Great Satan, that despises Israel and anyone who supports Israel and wants to destroy Israel, and whose religion essentially says that in order to bring forth their Messiah, they must bring chaos upon this world and destroy Israel.

Quite a naive stance. You don't have to negotiate with your friends - they are already on your side, and you only have to keep in touch and stay connected. You DO have to negotiate with your enemies, like it or not. Anybody who doesn't understand this is sadly misinformed.

The US cannot afford to keep "arming up" for any kind of fight that we might wish to engage in so that we can bully other governments to "toe the line". Bush/Cheney thought that was a fine idea. Somehow, the US lost countless billions of dollars following that model and Cheney (who never divested his Halliburton options) made fortunes from the no-bid war contracts. Just a coincidence, I imagine.

 

[rootX]

AIG xkcd

And 0.002 dollars will never equal 0.002 cents

http://www.xkcd.com/558/

 

[russ_watters]

Nonsense to what? After 911, virtually anyone questioning the Bush admin was accused of being anti-American, or unpatriotic, or soft on terror, or a Henny Penny [Rummy], or a liberal blah blah blah. And Bush told the world that "you are either with us or against us".

You are, in essence, misquoting Bush. Bush wasn't talking about public dissent or stifling it, he was talking about holding other countries accountable for inaction in the face of a crisis. If there is a big problem and you accept that it is a big problem but still do nothing to fix it, even though you easily could, that's immoral. We're having a thread on the concept in the philosophy forum. Here's the speech: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/gen.attack.on.terror/

It has been implied that Obama is acting frantically. To those who feel this way, relax. We're just not used to having a President who is engaged and active.

Lol, no, Ivan. Bush was criticized for exactly that: Doing too much.

But being engaged and active is not frantic. Frantic is shooting from the hip and acting without thinking. It is tough to know for sure because he has people protecting him, but it appears the current situation with the AIG bonuses is a perfect example of it. They were aware of an issue and didn't think it through before acting on it (several times!). That's one of the things that scares me about him: he's smart, but right now he's acting without thinking a lot of the time.

 

[russ_watters]

No idea. That seems overly speculative to me.

It was speculative, but now we know!:

With Bush though you would have to wonder if they really weren't Cheney's picks anyway wouldn't you?

Thanks, yes, that was my point!

Sometimes I love this forum. Even when you know you are being baited, you still can't resist that worm!

 

[russ_watters]

Barack Obama hs no command whatsoever of the issues. He is nothing but an arrogant, ignorant idiot. That isn't even a point of debate anymore. It is quite amazing how fast his ratings have dropped right now. He has no clue what he's doing with the economy or with foreign policy, as evidenced by his bumbling with Russia, his bumbling with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and his ridiculous weak-kneed appeal to the Iranian regime.

I almost agree with you. As I said before, I really believe he is intelligent, but what should be obvious now is his ignorance (that inexperience thing Republicans warned us about last fall...) and his frantic-ness (not sure if there is actually a word for that). Obama acts without thinking his ideas through, which is just a manifestation of another thing we were warned about during the campaign: Obama didn't tell us anything specific about his ideas because there was nothing specific about his ideas. They weren't thought through even a little bit. Since Obama acts without thinking, it is also unsurprising that he reacts without thinking.

His foreign policy is a separate matter entirely, but I agree there: Our adversaries are testing his meddle with staring contests and instead of staring back, he's hanging his head. One thing that Bush was criticized for but is actually extremely important is that those adversaries must fear us. And our friends must still respect us and staring back accomplishes both (in diferent situations).

 

[Jacob Perry]

I generally dislike all politicians. Obama exploits and manipulates just like any other politician. I'm not against voting for him, but I doubt he's the savior for this country.

Exactly

 

[Cyrus]

His foreign policy is a separate matter entirely, but I agree there: Our adversaries are testing his meddle with staring contests and instead of staring back, he's hanging his head. One thing that Bush was criticized for but is actually extremely important is that those adversaries must fear us. And our friends must still respect us and staring back accomplishes both (in diferent situations).

Allow me to ask the following. Since 1979, (the past 30 years), US foreign policy has been one of sanctions and 'staring down' with Iran. Not surprisingly, there has been no progress in foreign relations with Iran for 30 years. Could you explain to me why continued 'stare down, big talk' tactics will change anything, or even work for that matter. Up to date -it hasn't. I would argue otherwise. Obama reaching out to the Iranaians makes it very hard for Ahmedinijad to run for president again against 'the great satin' when he's the only one with such loud mouth rhetoric. Politically, it's a pretty smart move, IMO. But I would like to hear your view as to why continued failed policy will somehow work.

 

[LowlyPion]

"Originally Posted by Greg Bernhardt
I generally dislike all politicians. Obama exploits and manipulates just like any other politician. I'm not against voting for him, but I doubt he's the savior for this country."

Exactly

But then again a lot has happened since last June when that was posted and Obama has proven himself to be the far better choice. Maybe even a savior as time may tell.

One thing is for sure though. The country has repudiated the Republicans and their failed stewardship. It would seem that the Fox News ideology is on the run, and precious few if any Republican leaders look capable of building any kind of National Consensus. Unpopular and impotent and repudiated in detail at the polls. Not a good recipe for short term thoughts of returning to power.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I almost agree with you. As I said before, I really believe he is intelligent, but what should be obvious now is his ignorance (that inexperience thing Republicans warned us about last fall...) and his frantic-ness (not sure if there is actually a word for that). Obama acts without thinking his ideas through, which is just a manifestation of another thing we were warned about during the campaign: Obama didn't tell us anything specific about his ideas because there was nothing specific about his ideas. They weren't thought through even a little bit. Since Obama acts without thinking, it is also unsurprising that he reacts without thinking.

I doubt that anyone, aside from a president, could claim the experience necessary to deal with so many major decisions (not including the minor ones) needing immediate attention floating across their desk on a daily basis. And so directly after taking the job too. I don't believe this is any flaw on the part of Obama but merely a product of the situation and I seriously doubt McCain would have done any better. I think he'll settle in and get used to it, like any president must.

His foreign policy is a separate matter entirely, but I agree there: Our adversaries are testing his meddle with staring contests and instead of staring back, he's hanging his head. One thing that Bush was criticized for but is actually extremely important is that those adversaries must fear us. And our friends must still respect us and staring back accomplishes both (in diferent situations).

I had a female friend, she was older and not in very good health, who one night was being stared down by some vatos at a gas station. She smiled and complimented their car and suddenly they were all smiles and talkative offering her help.
Obviously a very different situation but a decent example. A stare down doesn't change anything, its only maintains a tense atmosphere which can have unpredictable results. If you don't want to be caught off guard and want to maintain control of the situation you need to be the first to break the contest and make a move.

 

[Al68]

If the mortgage companies gave out bad loans like candy they would have buried themselves. The reason they did it and made money off of it is deregulation that assisted them in pawning off the bad loans on other financial institutions.

That's just outright false. The reason was regulation, not deregulation. The Fed Gov't created the demand for the bad mortgages by regulation. That demand wouldn't and couldn't exist in a free market.

Blaming a lack of regulation for the problems caused by regulations seems to be a popular trend now. And the proposed solution to problems caused by gov't regulation is, you guessed it, more regulation. Then to solve the resulting problems, we need more regulation, since there obviously was not enough regulation. And every problem they refer to is one that could never exist in the absence of gov't regulation/interference.

 

[Al68]

There is legal precendent for this, since the bonuses amounted to what is known in legal terms as "unjust enrichment". In other words, the executives took money that they did not earn, and taxpayers lost that money with no input on our part.

Baloney. Whether you think they "deserve" the bonuses or not, they met the contract requirements. And they did not take the money from taxpayers, and neither did AIG. The government did.

And looking at the big picture, who in their right mind would want an insurance policy with a company that tried to get out of honoring their contracts just to curry favor with the White House? I want a policy with a company that's more respectable and honest than that.

That's not very good advertisement for a company who's business depends on being trusted to honor their contracts.

 

[LowlyPion]

Blaming a lack of regulation for the problems caused by regulations seems to be a popular trend now. And the proposed solution to problems caused by gov't regulation is, you guessed it, more regulation. Then to solve the resulting problems, we need more regulation, since there obviously was not enough regulation. And every problem they refer to is one that could never exist in the absence of gov't regulation/interference.

Fortunately the country has remediated what I think was the real problem which was the previous administration that was called upon to implement it, doing so in a way that permitted the kinds of wild west derivatives that leveraged risks beyond the toppling point.

I'd look to the army of Countrywide Mazillos and the flood of telemarketing and junk mail that cared nothing about consequences, but what they could get in commissions, signing any loan they could shake loose and sweep under the under regulated rug.

Meanwhile you had an administration that was philosophically bred on thinking the market would work things out without damage - like Hoover once did - until Lehman suddenly failed amid great surprise. Now that we've gotten rid of Bush and his general ineptness (Katrina, Guantanamo, etc.) and his ideological blindspots about regulation and less government, there seems to be some hope.

Blaming Obama hardly seems like a useful exercise unless hating him because he is capable makes people feel better in some perverse way. He looks to be solving the problems.