Government Deregulation

[bobbyjimmy]

Hey there, kids... you might recall how a couple of months ago many folks on this board staunchly argued that our government is under attack from socialist liberal powers trying to over-regulate everything... here's a nice little discussion about our new Treasury Nominee, Jack Lew, who's career exemplifies what I've been talking about. I'm sure you'll dismiss it as liberal propaganda but the facts of his career speak clearly. To reiterate, I understand your point about having too many laws and regulations in certain areas of life. For most people, daily life is riddled with dumb regulations that make doing even the simplest thing a headache; but on the corporate financial level, it's a different world. Rather than putting your ideology in front of facts, I urge you to realize that deregulation is a reality in the world of Wall Street and the main reason we ended up where we are...

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/1/11/failure_of_epic_proportions_treasury_nominee

 

[Cruella]

Jack Lew is a butt kisser. He's in Obama's camp, that we don't have a spending problem. Having him as Sec. of the Treasury would be an utter disaster for this country.

 

[Gipper]

Jack Lew is a butt kisser. He's in Obama's camp, that we don't have a spending problem. Having him as Sec. of the Treasury would be an utter disaster for this country.

He is a typical hard core lefty. But he will not be much different than Little Timmy. The disaster is 8 years of Big Ears and all his foolish socialist friends and policies. And this on top of 8 years of progressive foolishness under W. Not good.

 

[cashmcall]

Hey there, kids... you might recall how a couple of months ago many folks on this board staunchly argued that our government is under attack from socialist liberal powers trying to over-regulate everything... here's a nice little discussion about our new Treasury Nominee, Jack Lew, who's career exemplifies what I've been talking about. I'm sure you'll dismiss it as liberal propaganda but the facts of his career speak clearly. To reiterate, I understand your point about having too many laws and regulations in certain areas of life. For most people, daily life is riddled with dumb regulations that make doing even the simplest thing a headache; but on the corporate financial level, it's a different world. Rather than putting your ideology in front of facts, I urge you to realize that deregulation is a reality in the world of Wall Street and the main reason we ended up where we are...

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/1/11/failure_of_epic_proportions_treasury_nominee

Great video..
Robert Sheer
When asked by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., at a Senate confirmation hearing in 2010, when Lew was nominated to be head of the Office of Management and Budget, whether the deregulation pushed by Rubin and former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan had “contributed significantly” to the banking crisis, Lew responded:

“Senator, I don’t consider myself an expert in some of these aspects of the financial industry. My experience in the financial industry has been as a manager, not an investment adviser. My sense, as someone who has generally been familiar with these trends, is that the problems in the financial industry preceded deregulation. There was an increasing emphasis on highly abstract leveraged derivative products that got us to the point, that, in the period of time leading up to the financial crisis, risks were taken, they weren’t fully embraced, they weren’t well understood. I don’t personally know the extent to which deregulation drove it, but I don’t think deregulation was the proximate cause."Really? That is a statement of such deliberate ignorance that one must marvel at Lew’s audacity in uttering it. He was one of the top economic officials in the Clinton administration when the president signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act into law that declared all of those “derivative products” exempt from the reach of any existing government regulation or regulatory agency. It was aimed at silencing the warning of Brooksley Born, who, as head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, attempted to control the burgeoning market in the toxic assets that have carried such a huge human price in foreclosed homes and lost jobs.

But if we need that quality in a Treasury secretary, we certainly need it even more in the president, and given Obama’s appointments—from Lawrence Summers through Geithner and now Lew—it is clear that he is not that person. In announcing Lew’s nomination, the president only once referenced his chief of staff’s Wall Street experience, noting, “He helped oversee ... one of our largest investment banks.” That he also helped destroy it was buried as an inconvenient truth.

 

[cashmcall]

Jack Lew is no George Shultz, or William Simon, or Lloyd Bentsen, or Robert Rubin, or Hank Paulson. He is an inside, Obama political operator, not an independent voice. This is degrading to one of the biggest jobs in the government.
republican congress, here’s a piece of free advice: In the coming economic battles, stay away from debt-ceiling defaults and government shutdowns. Instead, keep a laser-like focus on implementing the $1.2 trillion sequester spending cuts, which would actually pay for last year’s debt-ceiling hike, and put together a tough-minded, cut, cap, and balance spending-cut package for the upcoming budget cycle.

 

[bobbyjimmy]

Right. So we all agree this guy is terrible, that Obama has no interest in solving the problem, etc. The issue here is that y'all still seem to think that Wall Street is somehow full of left-wing socialists; I'm not sure how you can read the discussion and still ignore the obvious destruction of financial regulations that had kept Wall Street in check for decades. Socialism doesn't place the interests of a few wealthy people over those of the populace, nor did it ever design a bailout system for corporations. You're using the wrong labels and it's leading you to link opposite sides together while ignoring who the real bad guys are.

 

[cashmcall]

Right. So we all agree this guy is terrible, that Obama has no interest in solving the problem, etc. The issue here is that y'all still seem to think that Wall Street is somehow full of left-wing socialists; I'm not sure how you can read the discussion and still ignore the obvious destruction of financial regulations that had kept Wall Street in check for decades. Socialism doesn't place the interests of a few wealthy people over those of the populace, nor did it ever design a bailout system for corporations. You're using the wrong labels and it's leading you to link opposite sides together while ignoring who the real bad guys are.

Tell me who you think the real bad guy's are..TIA

 

[bobbyjimmy]

Tell me who you think the real bad guy's are..TIA

I misspoke, sorry. We all agree who the bad guys are- corporations and the government that bends over backwards to serve them. What I was referring to was the complete lack of understand of political history, and the bizarre things that pass for "fact" around here... like, Mitt Romney is a progressive, George Bush is a progressive... everyone around here seems to think they were both the lesser of two evils... which makes no sense. The people you guys are complaining about are not pursing a socialist doctrine, but a neo-liberal conservative one; they don't see this world as a communal chunk of land we all live on and need to take care of, they see it as a gigantic real-estate opportunity to be gobbled up like a Monopoly board. Hence the removal of all sorts of regulations that kept Wall Street from gambling with our economy- but somehow you think the opposite is happening (maybe not "cashmcall" whos name I don't remember seeing, but most of the other folks on this board that were piping up during the election.)

 

[Saxon]

Hey there, kids... you might recall how a couple of months ago many folks on this board staunchly argued that our government is under attack from socialist liberal powers trying to over-regulate everything... here's a nice little discussion about our new Treasury Nominee, Jack Lew, who's career exemplifies what I've been talking about. I'm sure you'll dismiss it as liberal propaganda but the facts of his career speak clearly. To reiterate, I understand your point about having too many laws and regulations in certain areas of life. For most people, daily life is riddled with dumb regulations that make doing even the simplest thing a headache; but on the corporate financial level, it's a different world. Rather than putting your ideology in front of facts, I urge you to realize that deregulation is a reality in the world of Wall Street and the main reason we ended up where we are...

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/1/11/failure_of_epic_proportions_treasury_nominee

Nobody understands the need for government regulation more than I, a CANADIAN. You see, you Americans and your rampant greed, mixed with deregulation, brought the world to the brink of ruin. The result was the need for socialisation of your banks (in the cradle of CAPITALISM, no less), along with many other countries forced to do the same in order to survive the mess YOU created. Alas, Canadian banks are amongst the most-heavily regulated in the world, and this fact left our banks intact, basically without a scratch, so to speak. What the greedy American Wall Street scum perpetrated in the financial world would NEVER happen here. Were they to attempt to do so, the RCMP would be marching on Bay Street pronto. As a fascist, I see the need for controlled-capitalism via heavy regulation. In other words, you are free to make some money, but do NOT risk the State in the process... or else.

 

[Saxon]

Right. So we all agree this guy is terrible, that Obama has no interest in solving the problem, etc. The issue here is that y'all still seem to think that Wall Street is somehow full of left-wing socialists; I'm not sure how you can read the discussion and still ignore the obvious destruction of financial regulations that had kept Wall Street in check for decades. Socialism doesn't place the interests of a few wealthy people over those of the populace, nor did it ever design a bailout system for corporations. You're using the wrong labels and it's leading you to link opposite sides together while ignoring who the real bad guys are.

The bailout of the corporation was a socialist move, my dear child.

 

[bobbyjimmy]

The bailout of the corporation was a socialist move, my dear child.

No, it's capitalism hiding behind a socialist mask. If you define "socialism" as "any time one entity gives another entity money" then sure, it was a "socialist" move, but then the word socialism is absolutely useless and carries no weight- certainly not the weight people give it around here. It's the ultimate irony that all the actual working people that got screwed over received no "safety net" or bailout, yet Wall Street did. That's not socialism by any logical, rational definition. It's only socialism when viewed through a conveniently selective and myopic lens. It reminds me of "Bob Roberts" - the fake documentary about a right-wing candidate using folk music and other populist forms to spread his message. "He's a folk singer so he must be a liberal!" is the joke. Same thing's happening here. "They bailed out Wall Street so they must be socialists!"

 

[Saxon]

No, it's capitalism hiding behind a socialist mask. If you define "socialism" as "any time one entity gives another entity money" then sure, it was a "socialist" move, but then the word socialism is absolutely useless and carries no weight- certainly not the weight people give it around here. It's the ultimate irony that all the actual working people that got screwed over received no "safety net" or bailout, yet Wall Street did. That's not socialism by any logical, rational definition. It's only socialism when viewed through a conveniently selective and myopic lens. It reminds me of "Bob Roberts" - the fake documentary about a right-wing candidate using folk music and other populist forms to spread his message. "He's a folk singer so he must be a liberal!" is the joke. Same thing's happening here. "They bailed out Wall Street so they must be socialists!"

Ahem, who was the source of the bailout???? My lord, but are Americans THIS blinkered? It was outright socialism.

 

[bobbyjimmy]

Ahem, who was the source of the bailout???? My lord, but are Americans THIS blinkered? It was outright socialism.

Please define your terms as I have no idea what you're trying to say. If you mean that the dormant American public funded the bailout via their taxes, that doesn't exactly spell "socialism" as no one was ever given the ability to choose where their tax money was going or how it would be used. Call the American public dumb, ignorant, apathetic and sedated, sure, but I'm not sure where "socialism" falls into the picture. Everyone around here seems to have their own unique interpretation of the term.

From Webster's: "Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods."

First, there is no collective ownership here as the financial corporations are privately owned. Second, there is no collective administration here as you can plainly see by 25 years' worth of deregulation. Third, there is no governmental ownership going on here- had Obama said "we're bailing you out but we're taking over the business" then maybe you'd have a case. Fourth, there is no governmental administration going on here, as Wall Street was handed over billions of dollars and then left to run itself as it was doing before the crash.

 

[Gipper]

I misspoke, sorry. We all agree who the bad guys are- corporations and the government that bends over backwards to serve them. What I was referring to was the complete lack of understand of political history, and the bizarre things that pass for "fact" around here... like, Mitt Romney is a progressive, George Bush is a progressive... everyone around here seems to think they were both the lesser of two evils... which makes no sense. The people you guys are complaining about are not pursing a socialist doctrine, but a neo-liberal conservative one; they don't see this world as a communal chunk of land we all live on and need to take care of, they see it as a gigantic real-estate opportunity to be gobbled up like a Monopoly board. Hence the removal of all sorts of regulations that kept Wall Street from gambling with our economy- but somehow you think the opposite is happening (maybe not "cashmcall" whos name I don't remember seeing, but most of the other folks on this board that were piping up during the election.)

Are you trying to claim Bush was a conservative? If so, I can not disagree more strongly. Bush was a moderate progressive, just as was Romney. Both were believers in big government....a conservative does not believe in big government. Both were also interventionists (conservatives do not believe in foreign interventions), which qualifies them as a crossbred....meaning a Neocon progressive. Neither one held strong conservative beliefs on any of the big issues of the day.

In reality there is very little difference between the Ds and Rs. But, the state run media fills Americans with this bogus belief that the two parties are so different and of course, since the state run media is generally leftist, they attack the Rs for not being progressive enough. It is all a big game to misinform the American public.

 

[GenSeneca]

No, it's capitalism hiding behind a socialist mask.

Capitalism doesn't allow things like bailouts, a Capitalist system is built on volitional consent and mutually beneficial exchange. It seems you are trying to redefine 'capitalism' as, "any time one entity gives another entity money" without regard for what Capitalism is actually all about: Protecting the rights of the Individual. You also seem to disregard what all the Collectivist ideologies are all about: Violating the rights of some for the benefit of others - exactly what happened in the bailouts.

So while you can argue that we aren't quite yet fully Socialist because private "ownership" still exists, there's no denying the fact that America is a hardcore Collectivist nation that routinely violates the rights of some in order to provide an exclusive benefit to others.