GOP Members Falling Away From McConnell on Bank Reforms

• LJ

  

  believer wrote:

  I Wear Pants wrote: Well then we're all fucked believer and we should just give up.
  
  There are two things we can do, regulate the industry by saying, "Hey assholes, stop it" or we can just let the industry keep chugging along as it is and drive us straight into the ground.
  
  What is the alternative to putting some regulations on the industry?

  We're already screwed. When it comes down to it, I'll trust in the free market to ultimately police itself any day over government interference, over-regulation and take-over. Basically you want one set of assholes to yell "stop" at another. That fixes what?
  

  I Wear Pants wrote:How else can you stop the industry from fucking us all other than making some rules or expecting them to grow a heart?

  So you place you trust and heart in the benevolence of Big Government?

  The USA does not have a perfect market, never has, so your theory won't work. It's that simple.
• majorspark

  

  Footwedge wrote: Do you think we should get rid of the beat cops too? They're also paid for by the tax dollar. Imagine not having a single cop out there. More to the point....when (not if) the system completely collapses again, you all in for another trillion dollar printing press fiesta?

  Beat cops are local law enforcement. They should be compensated with local tax dollars and for the most part are. I would not want federal law enforcement patrolling the streets of my town.
  
  We are talking about big government here. Some of you are so in love with big government yet despise big oil, big pharma, etc. I would rather have 50 oil companies competing with each other and 50 governments regulating them.
  
  Big governments have shown a much larger disreguard for human life than your biggest corporations combined. Many of the founders were wary of big government. I am as well.
• I Wear Pants

  They were just as weary of corporations.
  
  But we're not talking about the expansion of government here. We're just talking about making a few rules so that banks can't do unfair or harmful things to the rest of us to make a profit.
  
  Also I bet you like government regulations on whether someone can have an abortion. If so, why is one type of regulation okay and the other isn't?
• bigmanbt

  Regulations are only good if they promote competition. Haven't read the reforms they want, but they probably won't help. Until we can get the special interests out of DC and the social engineering out of the tax code things won't change. We have to get back to capitalism, not corporatism.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  bigmanbt wrote: Regulations are only good if they promote competition. Haven't read the reforms they want, but they probably won't help. Until we can get the special interests out of DC and the social engineering out of the tax code things won't change. We have to get back to capitalism, not corporatism.

  Amen and Amen!
• I Wear Pants

  bigmanbt wrote: Regulations are only good if they promote competition. Haven't read the reforms they want, but they probably won't help. Until we can get the special interests out of DC and the social engineering out of the tax code things won't change. We have to get back to capitalism, not corporatism.

  Capitalistic greed is what causes people to game the system. Getting back to it won't stop douchebags from cheating.
• jhay78

  

  I Wear Pants wrote:
  But we're not talking about the expansion of government here. We're just talking about making a few rules so that banks can't do unfair or harmful things to the rest of us to make a profit.
  

  It's actually transferring way too much authority to the executive branch- Obama and Geithner- and away from Congress.
  
  Two things raise red flags for me:
  
  1) the timing of suing Goldman with the pressure to pass financial reform. Like the church lady on SNL used to say, "How convenient".
  
  2) the media's ignoring of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the failure of Democrats (Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, etc.) to regulate them when many knew the bubble was going to burst. For the government to sue Goldman and ignore Fannie/Freddie and what created a situation for Goldman to commit fraud is very hypocritical.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants wrote: Capitalistic greed is what causes people to game the system. Getting back to it won't stop douchebags from cheating.

  Of course greed is never the motivation of any government official. They are just benevolent individuals absent of any of the character flaws of the rest of mankind.
  
  Milton Freidman on greed.
  
  
  Some notable non capitalistic societies where you find greed.
  
  Fidel Castro - Cuba
  King Abdullah - Saudi Arabia
  Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahayan - UAE
  http://www.usatoday.com/money/2006-05-04-castro_x.htm
  
  Kim Jong Il - North Korea
  http://www.newsweek.com/id/69200

  Last year the South Korean aid organization Good Friends, which boasts a broad range of sources in the North, published a revealing study of its own. It concluded that North Korea's wealthy now spend 10 times as much on food as those less privileged, live in homes equipped with modern conveniences like refrigerators and washing machines (largely unknown to their countrymen), and can even afford maids and private tutors for their children. "What you're seeing now on the one hand is more cars on the street and nice fruit being sold in Unification Market in [the capital city of] Pyongyang," notes Marcus Noland, an economist at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. "And yet many people still don't have food security."

  Hugo Chavez - Venezuala
  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3563606/Hugo-Chavez-effect-finally-wears-off-in-Venezuela-and-around-the-world.html

  Meanwhile the Chavistas, as the president's fans are known, buy so many Hummers that the vehicles have their own assembly plant in Venezuela.
  
  Petro-money has seen sales of Rolexes rise sevenfold and clubs like Sawu, where the new elite pour Johnnie Walker Blue - that elixir of the ultra rich - into their Coca-Colas, flourish.
  
  The fact that the institutions of privilege have merely changed hands increasingly angers ordinary people who were promised everything and have been given very little.

  http://vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200602211019

  The Venezuelan government is engaged in a massive money laundering operation, the object of which is obvious: to set up a pipeline with which to transfer’s Venezuela’s billions of dollars of oil profits overseas for Chavez and corrupt members of the “Bolivarian Elite.”

  This notion many have been duped into believing, that "greed" finds more fertile ground in a capitalistic society, is utter bullshit. It is no more or less prevalent in a capitalistic society than any other economic or governmental system. It is flaw in human nature that will exploit and permate any social system. It even finds its way into the church.
  
  One thing that a truly free and captialistic economic system offers is the freedom of individuals to do something about it. Individuals at least have some choice in dealing with the greedy.
• Footwedge

  jhay78 wrote:
  
  Two things raise red flags for me:
  
  1) the timing of suing Goldman with the pressure to pass financial reform. Like the church lady on SNL used to say, "How convenient".

  Timing? What timing? What would be a good time for this?
  

  2) the media's ignoring of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the failure of Democrats (Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, etc.) to regulate them when many knew the bubble was going to burst. For the government to sue Goldman and ignore Fannie/Freddie and what created a situation for Goldman to commit fraud is very hypocritical.

  I think F & F are certainly complicit and should be dealt with as well. and I hope they are....just as I hope AIG is.
  
  But your post reeks of partisan talking points. Why don't people on the right praise the SEC here for going after the second biggest doner to Obama's 2008 campaign?
  
  It's the same old crap. F & F are the sole criminals...and the private players were oh so innocent. Bunch of shit if you ask me.
• Footwedge

  majorspark wrote:
  One thing that a truly free and captialistic economic system offers is the freedom of individuals to do something about it. Individuals at least have some choice in dealing with the greedy.

  Like what? Enforce regulations? It is true that there are plenty of people abusing the monetary system abroad in communist countries. But my take regarding the investment banker top execs and bigwigs is that they are all psychopaths. Not exxagerating either. They are all nuts.
• LJ

  

  majorspark wrote:

  I Wear Pants wrote: Capitalistic greed is what causes people to game the system. Getting back to it won't stop douchebags from cheating.

  Of course greed is never the motivation of any government official. They are just benevolent individuals absent of any of the character flaws of the rest of mankind.
  
  Milton Freidman on greed.
  
  
  Some notable non capitalistic societies where you find greed.
  
  Fidel Castro - Cuba
  King Abdullah - Saudi Arabia
  Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahayan - UAE
  http://www.usatoday.com/money/2006-05-04-castro_x.htm
  
  Kim Jong Il - North Korea
  http://www.newsweek.com/id/69200

  Last year the South Korean aid organization Good Friends, which boasts a broad range of sources in the North, published a revealing study of its own. It concluded that North Korea's wealthy now spend 10 times as much on food as those less privileged, live in homes equipped with modern conveniences like refrigerators and washing machines (largely unknown to their countrymen), and can even afford maids and private tutors for their children. "What you're seeing now on the one hand is more cars on the street and nice fruit being sold in Unification Market in [the capital city of] Pyongyang," notes Marcus Noland, an economist at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. "And yet many people still don't have food security."

  Hugo Chavez - Venezuala
  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3563606/Hugo-Chavez-effect-finally-wears-off-in-Venezuela-and-around-the-world.html

  Meanwhile the Chavistas, as the president's fans are known, buy so many Hummers that the vehicles have their own assembly plant in Venezuela.
  
  Petro-money has seen sales of Rolexes rise sevenfold and clubs like Sawu, where the new elite pour Johnnie Walker Blue - that elixir of the ultra rich - into their Coca-Colas, flourish.
  
  The fact that the institutions of privilege have merely changed hands increasingly angers ordinary people who were promised everything and have been given very little.

  http://vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200602211019

  The Venezuelan government is engaged in a massive money laundering operation, the object of which is obvious: to set up a pipeline with which to transfer’s Venezuela’s billions of dollars of oil profits overseas for Chavez and corrupt members of the “Bolivarian Elite.”

  This notion many have been duped into believing, that "greed" finds more fertile ground in a capitalistic society, is utter bullshit. It is no more or less prevalent in a capitalistic society than any other economic or governmental system. It is flaw in human nature that will exploit and permate any social system. It even finds its way into the church.
  
  One thing that a truly free and captialistic economic system offers is the freedom of individuals to do something about it. Individuals at least have some choice in dealing with the greedy.

  It's because greed is an emotion. It's a coping emotion for dealing with the fear of financial loss. Everyone has at least, at the VERY least, a hint of greed. Essentially, the more you have, the safer you are from financial ruin, which is one of the strongest fears in the modern day human (the fear of losing).
• ttae8286

  Over the years, our federal regulations and tax codes have gotten so bloated, complex, and confusing because the government is always responding after the fact with knee jerk reactions of more regulation, more agencies, etc., etc. Like it, or not, the corporate folks always outsmart the nitwits in Washington - it is the goal of free enterprise to make a profit. Many items of "greed" would have never been invented had the system not been tangled and manipulated (i.e. mortgage backed securities, sub-prime loans, certain derivatives, etc). No doubt, intentions are often good (or claimed to be good) but there is always collateral damage and loopholes by the time any bloated regulatory/tax package gets through the system. Rather than bloat and confuse it some more, enforce what is already on the books, and simplify. Simplification (along with the added benefit of cost reduction) should start with slashing the federal headcount by at least 20% and scrapping IRS and the tax code.
• QuakerOats

  I Wear Pants wrote: I cannot believe that there is anyone that doesn't want reforms for the banking/financial industry.

  Not if it is being authored by the fools in congress that brought us the mess in the first place (i.e. Dodd/Frank & Co.)
  
  Oh and by the way, will it include having obama return the $1,000,000 he took from Goldman Sachs, along with the millions more from the other wall st banks?
  
  Change we can believe in ................................
• QuakerOats

  jhay78 wrote: It's actually transferring way too much authority to the executive branch- Obama and Geithner- and away from Congress.
  
  Two things raise red flags for me:
  
  1) the timing of suing Goldman with the pressure to pass financial reform. Like the church lady on SNL used to say, "How convenient".
  
  2) the media's ignoring of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the failure of Democrats (Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, etc.) to regulate them when many knew the bubble was going to burst. For the government to sue Goldman and ignore Fannie/Freddie and what created a situation for Goldman to commit fraud is very hypocritical.

  Thank you..................... get a beer!
• jhay78

  

  Footwedge wrote:

  jhay78 wrote:
  
  Two things raise red flags for me:
  
  1) the timing of suing Goldman with the pressure to pass financial reform. Like the church lady on SNL used to say, "How convenient".

  Timing? What timing? What would be a good time for this?
  

  2) the media's ignoring of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the failure of Democrats (Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, etc.) to regulate them when many knew the bubble was going to burst. For the government to sue Goldman and ignore Fannie/Freddie and what created a situation for Goldman to commit fraud is very hypocritical.

  I think F & F are certainly complicit and should be dealt with as well. and I hope they are....just as I hope AIG is.
  
  But your post reeks of partisan talking points. Why don't people on the right praise the SEC here for going after the second biggest doner to Obama's 2008 campaign?
  
  It's the same old crap. F & F are the sole criminals...and the private players were oh so innocent. Bunch of shit if you ask me.

  Because this suit isn't going to negatively affect Goldman at all. It's a political maneuver to stir up class warfare sentiment among the illiterate masses so they can say "See- we need greedy, errrrr, benevolent government to save us from evil Wall Street".
  
  And Fannie and Freddie will never be dealt with under this administration, just as Barney Frank will never be held accountable for saying that F & F were in great shape and no reforms were needed in 2003:
  http://www.zimbio.com/Freddie+Mac/articles/423/Barney+Frank+Chuck+Schumer+Role+Fannie+Mae
  http://www.usnews.com/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/09/10/barney-franks-fannie-and-freddie-muddle.html

  "These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

  And I never said the private players were innocent.
• jhay78

  

  QuakerOats wrote:

  jhay78 wrote: It's actually transferring way too much authority to the executive branch- Obama and Geithner- and away from Congress.
  
  Two things raise red flags for me:
  
  1) the timing of suing Goldman with the pressure to pass financial reform. Like the church lady on SNL used to say, "How convenient".
  
  2) the media's ignoring of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the failure of Democrats (Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, etc.) to regulate them when many knew the bubble was going to burst. For the government to sue Goldman and ignore Fannie/Freddie and what created a situation for Goldman to commit fraud is very hypocritical.

  Thank you..................... get a beer!

  Appreciate that- might have to take your advice!
• believer

  

  QuakerOats wrote:Not if it is being authored by the fools in congress that brought us the mess in the first place (i.e. Dodd/Frank & Co.)
  
  Oh and by the way, will it include having obama return the $1,000,000 he took from Goldman Sachs, along with the millions more from the other wall st banks?
  
  Change we can believe in ................................

  This CRAP is precisely why I cannot for the life of me understand all the "gotta regulate to make it right" advocates when the hypocritical douche bags in Congress and the White House are hardly the source for righting the ship.
• majorspark

  

  Footwedge wrote:

  majorspark wrote:
  One thing that a truly free and captialistic economic system offers is the freedom of individuals to do something about it. Individuals at least have some choice in dealing with the greedy.

  Like what? Enforce regulations? It is true that there are plenty of people abusing the monetary system abroad in communist countries. But my take regarding the investment banker top execs and bigwigs is that they are all psychopaths. Not exxagerating either. They are all nuts.

  In a true capitalistic system an individual would have many choices from which to purchase a good or service. If you do not like a company's business practices you can buy from someone else.
  
  Corporate entities would not be able to grow to the point that they are so vital to the economic system that their failure should result in a taxpayer bailout. More competition at the corporate level and the elimination of taxpayer safety nets for bad business practices would no doubt reign in some of the monies being doled out to corporate bigs.
  
  These psychopath investment bankers and top execs would weed themselves into any socialist or communist government. I gave plenty of proof of it. They are no more or less prevalent in capitalism.
  
  To this date in world history, no economic system has been able to bring the masses out of poverty than that of a capitalistic economic system.
• bigmanbt

  majorspark wrote:

  Footwedge wrote:

  majorspark wrote:
  One thing that a truly free and captialistic economic system offers is the freedom of individuals to do something about it. Individuals at least have some choice in dealing with the greedy.

  Like what? Enforce regulations? It is true that there are plenty of people abusing the monetary system abroad in communist countries. But my take regarding the investment banker top execs and bigwigs is that they are all psychopaths. Not exxagerating either. They are all nuts.

  In a true capitalistic system an individual would have many choices from which to purchase a good or service. If you do not like a company's business practices you can buy from someone else.
  
  Corporate entities would not be able to grow to the point that they are so vital to the economic system that their failure should result in a taxpayer bailout. More competition at the corporate level and the elimination of taxpayer safety nets for bad business practices would no doubt reign in some of the monies being doled out to corporate bigs.
  
  These psychopath investment bankers and top execs would weed themselves into any socialist or communist government. I gave plenty of proof of it. They are no more or less prevalent in capitalism.
  
  To this date in world history, no economic system has been able to bring the masses out of poverty than that of a capitalistic economic system.

  Amen. Been saying this for a while now, businesses don't like certain monetary systems, they like whatever benefits their company more. Capitalism is the "People's" check on business. There will ALWAYS be fraud, there will always be corruption, there will always be people who fall through the cracks no matter the system. Capitalism is there to benefit the masses, not the privileged like the other monetary systems.
• Footwedge

  Capitalism the way Adam Smith presented it was/is a great economics model. Today's capitalism is exactly what he feared it would become.
  
  Adam Smith feared oligopolies and monopolies and he argued vigorously against corporations. He didn't want them. He didn't want them for the very reasons that they have evolved today.
  
  Meritacracies have always fueled the human spirit. Unfortunately, we have massive abuses at the top of the ladder wrung.
  
  The way the system has evolved, if not redirected to some degree, you will end up with only one megacorporation owning everything. No different than the Parker Bros. game of monopoly, whereby, if played long enough, one person owns the entire board, and the rest of the players are bankrupt.
  
  If you want "no rules" capitalism, then be prepared for a true proletariat and bourgeosie state. It is inevitable. Similar to serfdom.
• Footwedge

  Just an add on. I don't understand the thinking that American economics has to be an either or proposition. We haven't had a pure capitalistic model for over 100 years. And we will never have a communist system in the future.
  
  There will always remain room to make systems fairer to all people of different strata.
• bigmanbt

  I agree with you there, too Foot. After reading Hayek a little bit, true laissez faire doesn't work that well either. There has to be a good legal system that goes with the monetary system. Regulations in favor of competition are just needed checks on "no rules" capitalism.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants wrote: They were just as weary of corporations.

  I agree, most of the founders were against the centralization of power in the free market as well as government.
  

  I Wear Pants wrote: But we're not talking about the expansion of government here. We're just talking about making a few rules so that banks can't do unfair or harmful things to the rest of us to make a profit.

  Unless the federal government is relinquishing power it is by definition an expansion of power. No bailout of a corporate entity with taxpayer dollars can happen without the approval of congress. So why the need for new legislation? Vote no on bailouts. Antitrust laws are on the books today. Congress can use them to prevent the possibility of future bailouts.
  
  Oh and any bill with Chris Dodd's name on it in the name of financial reform makes me want to hurl. Dodd arguably should be donning an orange jumpsuit in a federal prison, not sponsoring financial reform legislation.
  

  I Wear Pants wrote: Also I bet you like government regulations on whether someone can have an abortion. If so, why is one type of regulation okay and the other isn't?

  I am not against all government regulation. There are many that I would be for. It depends first and foremost on its constitutionality. After that it depends on its scope, purpose, and level of government (federal, state, local).
  
  In the case of abortion the protection by government of human life is one of the necessary functions of government. All states have laws that protect innocent life. The constitution gives the federal government no say concerning abortion. Therefor I am not for federal government regulation of abortion. It should left up to the states.
• I Wear Pants

  Honestly I haven't read what's in this bill so knowing Dodd is probably is shit. But at the same time, something has to be done in the industry. They showed how they could handle more responsibility for themselves after Glass-Steagle was repealed. They couldn't.
  
  I wasn't trying to actually use abortion as an example it's just an area that I know many people who disagree with Obama tend to want regulations or outright banning of. I think that's kind of hypocritical. But that doesn't appear to be you.
  
  Point being, something has to be done. Whether it is this particular bill or not, the financial industry has shown that it cannot police itself.
• majorspark

  

  Footwedge wrote: Capitalism the way Adam Smith presented it was/is a great economics model. Today's capitalism is exactly what he feared it would become.
  
  Adam Smith feared oligopolies and monopolies and he argued vigorously against corporations. He didn't want them. He didn't want them for the very reasons that they have evolved today.
  
  Meritacracies have always fueled the human spirit. Unfortunately, we have massive abuses at the top of the ladder wrung.
  
  The way the system has evolved, if not redirected to some degree, you will end up with only one megacorporation owning everything. No different than the Parker Bros. game of monopoly, whereby, if played long enough, one person owns the entire board, and the rest of the players are bankrupt.
  
  If you want "no rules" capitalism, then be prepared for a true proletariat and bourgeosie state. It is inevitable. Similar to serfdom.

  I agree with most of what you are saying here. The answer in my opinion is not more government intervention. But enforcement of laws currently on the books that prevent centralization of corporate power. The answer is not to further empower the political elite. They seek to use the private elite to further their power/wealth and vise versa the private elite use the government to further their power/wealth over the market.
  
  If you think I am in favor of "no rules" capitalism you are misunderstanding my opinion. I seek robust competition of small government entities (the states) within the public sector of the union as well as I do competition of similarly small business entities operating in the private sector of the union.