Rid Congress of Wall Street vs. Main Street Supporters (Franken, Reaganomics, polls)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We must stop those in Congress who have consistently opposed regulation of Wall Street and place their interests over those of Main Street. Sign up now to clean house. Just read this from the New York Times and weep.
"But Mr. Schumer, a member of the Banking and Finance Committees, repeatedly took other steps to protect industry players from government oversight and tougher rules, a review of his record shows. Over the years, he has also helped save financial institutions billions of dollars in higher taxes or fees.
He succeeded in limiting efforts to regulate credit-rating agencies, for example, sponsored legislation that cut fees paid by Wall Street firms to finance government oversight, pushed to allow banks to have lower capital reserves and called for the revision of regulations to make corporations’ balance sheets more transparent."
He also said: “We are not going to rest until we change the rules, change the laws and make sure New York remains No. 1 for decades on into the future.”
There needs to be some reform of sorts when it comes to legislation and those who enjoy the political privileges derived from it....
Also, the tax mechanisms need to change for the majority so they're not marginalized when it comes to political clout. Otherwise, violence will lend its hand when deemed necessary....
We must stop those in Congress who have consistently opposed regulation of Wall Street and place their interests over those of Main Street. Sign up now to clean house. Just read this from the New York Times and weep.
"But Mr. Schumer, a member of the Banking and Finance Committees, repeatedly took other steps to protect industry players from government oversight and tougher rules, a review of his record shows. Over the years, he has also helped save financial institutions billions of dollars in higher taxes or fees.
He succeeded in limiting efforts to regulate credit-rating agencies, for example, sponsored legislation that cut fees paid by Wall Street firms to finance government oversight, pushed to allow banks to have lower capital reserves and called for the revision of regulations to make corporations’ balance sheets more transparent."
He also said: “We are not going to rest until we change the rules, change the laws and make sure New York remains No. 1 for decades on into the future.”
We must end the politics of corruption.
Agreed, but have you ever given thought to how to make the reforms needed to hose down DC once and for all? K street is acceptable to average americans? I'm wondering what the founders would say.
I'm also wondering if you could be honest about ALL politicians embracing deregulation even if it meant your party would suffer disgrace at having touted 'no big government' without mentioning they how planned on making law enforcement toothless. Business paradigms are not necessarily best in governance because the commitment to public servitude/ the greater good needs to remain primary objective. Learn what we can from them, use what works, but never allow it to corrupt the mission of government. We've been imbalanced for decades.
In 2004, Schumer handily won re-election against Republican Assemblyman Howard Mills of Middletown and Conservative Marilyn O'Grady. Many New York Republicans were dismayed by the selection of Mills over the conservative Michael Benjamin, who held significant advantages over Mills in both fundraising and organization.[15] Benjamin publicly accused GOP Chairman Sandy Treadwell and (R) Governor George Pataki of trying to muscle him out of the senate race and undermine the democratic process.[15] Schumer defeated Mills, the second-place finisher, by 2.8 million votes and won reelection with 71 percent of the vote, the most lopsided margin ever for a statewide election in New York.[16] Schumer won every county in the state except one, Hamilton County in the Adirondacks, the least populated and most Republican county in the state.[16] Mills conceded defeat minutes after the polls closed, before returns had come in.[16]
I'm also wondering if you could be honest about ALL politicians embracing deregulation even if it meant your party would suffer disgrace at having touted 'no big government' without mentioning they how planned on making law enforcement toothless. Business paradigms are not necessarily best in governance because the commitment to public servitude/ the greater good needs to remain primary objective. Learn what we can from them, use what works, but never allow it to corrupt the mission of government. We've been imbalanced for decades.
I'm very disappointed in the stances that people like Tom Coburn and Bob Corker took on the auto debate. That is another example where the greater good may be corrupted for the good of a few. However, the example that I brought out in the post was to highlight my problem with politicians who are not consistent. Continuing with the auto example, we were outraged when the CEO's came to Washington in private jets. Are we outraged when the Speaker of the House routinely flys across country in the same manner? Perhaps driving in a hybrid would set the proper tone for the Speaker.
Put another way, why is the carbon footprint of some irrevelant while those of others under scrutiny. It's all in being consistent with one's own philosophy. That is my point.
Here is another detailed analysis on the financial situation which points out the perils of little regulation in the financial markets:
I'm hoping everyone can stand above the fray. Earnest assessments can be made there, but when language locks people into us vs them mentality that has only served to distract everyone away from the issues. Even this issue you raised in OP.
YouTube - BAILOUT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL: Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK)
I agree wholeheartedly with everything Coburn said, including his begrudging endorsement of the bailout. I don't like it either but I'm hoping there are enough strings attached to prevent more abuses from occurring. Bush and Obama agree the bailout needs to happen (to buy time). What the next step would be is an open door for meaningful reforms to occur. That would be where ordinary folks like us can put our two cents in petitioning the law.
Governments responsibility/ peoples expectations of that government needs to be spelled out clearly. Business paradigms come and go, are subject to the winds of fortune, and have cruel fates when living by that sword. Can we agree that governance using capitalist paradigms in house is inappropriate? My view is that they should be obliged toward neutrality in the proper balance of we the people and commerce.
Schumer example you cited could have easily been republican because both parties have embraced the same philosophy to 'stay out of commerce's way' for the sake of economics. No more big government (reiterated by clinton BTW). Anyone care to ask what they planned on cutting in that process? I hold republicans more responsible because they started this whole ball rolling with reaganomics. Normally we could count on republicans to be the voice of reason but that went painfully absent.
Financial regulations: Your post article is good, but like many articles just now, are focused too narrowly. I hope they keep digging unmercifully to root out the BS. I'd love to see a non partisan comprehensive time line for every piece of key legislation (naming authors, sponsors, and political majority of the time) and every business/ political entity who profited from opening pandora's box. Start with Ford era where it was sold as a means to get us out of malaise inflationary problems pervasive throughout the 70's. This isn't just one pig in a poke purchased, but several that accumulated incrementally. Deregulation isn't entirely bad, but lack of oversight (like enron) gives criminals permission to do business at everyones expense.
I'm hoping everyone can stand above the fray. Earnest assessments can be made there, but when language locks people into us vs them mentality that has only served to distract everyone away from the issues.
Business paradigms come and go, are subject to the winds of fortune, and have cruel fates when living by that sword. Can we agree that governance using capitalist paradigms in house is inappropriate? My view is that they should be obliged toward neutrality in the proper balance of we the people and commerce.
Schumer example you cited could have easily been republican because both parties have embraced the same philosophy to 'stay out of commerce's way' for the sake of economics.
Deregulation isn't entirely bad, but lack of oversight (like enron) gives criminals permission to do business at everyones expense.
Let me break out my thoughts on your well reasoned post in four parts, based on four segments listed above.
1) It's hard for any reasonable person to disagree with your staying above the fray comment.
2) For someone who is used to measuring the world in terms of EBITDA and IRR using WACC, I will freely admit that I really do not understand what you mean by "governance using capitalist paradigms in house is inappropriate". I'm not being cute - I really do not understand what that paragraph means.
3) I will admit that the original intent of my post using Schumer and not mentioning his affiliation was the irony that I saw in his duality between his left leaning constituients and his support of very right leaning philosophies.
4) I agree with you that degregulation is not necessarily a bad thing but it could lead to very bad things. I'm sure the both of us have different views of exactly what caused the current financial situation, but that's OK. However, having taught what caused Enron (a classic accounting cooking the books situation) and what resulted (Sarbanes Oxley), I would disagree that it was a lack of oversight that was the root cause.
At any rate, we are probably not as far apart on philosphy as one might think.
Let me break out my thoughts on your well reasoned post in four parts, based on four segments listed above.
1) It's hard for any reasonable person to disagree with your staying above the fray comment.
2) For someone who is used to measuring the world in terms of EBITDA and IRR using WACC, I will freely admit that I really do not understand what you mean by "governance using capitalist paradigms in house is inappropriate". I'm not being cute - I really do not understand what that paragraph means.
3) I will admit that the original intent of my post using Schumer and not mentioning his affiliation was the irony that I saw in his duality between his left leaning constituients and his support of very right leaning philosophies.
4) I agree with you that degregulation is not necessarily a bad thing but it could lead to very bad things. I'm sure the both of us have different views of exactly what caused the current financial situation, but that's OK. However, having taught what caused Enron (a classic accounting cooking the books situation) and what resulted (Sarbanes Oxley), I would disagree that it was a lack of oversight that was the root cause.
At any rate, we are probably not as far apart on philosphy as one might think.
1. Every single thread on CD devolves to right vs left extremes at some point and I was hoping to avoid it early on. I'm glad you agree. Thought provoking posts deserve real attention, not the knee jerk masticated versions fed by media. Didn't mean to come across accusatory. Hundreds of other passers by might be tempted to spin.
2. I've mentioned this trend I associate with illness in a few threads. I'll explain better. Somewhere around Reagan era when business paradigms took hold of american thought process at a fevered pitch, our government had begun to mimic the paradigms with policy believing it would result in better governance (improved economy). To a large degree I'd say public servants were better able to identify waste and nonsense over $3 asprin and $300 hammers, however, when taken to an extreme they lose sight of the mission of government. Their mission statement changed to self interest.
Capitalism is being mistaken as a system of governance repeatedly in neo thought processes and I don't even think they're aware of themselves. It's not meant to be anything more than an economic tool and to force that tool to serve political ideology is foolishness. The prime directive of any government is to provide a stable base for both citizens and commerce under rule of law.
Currently politicians aren't concerned about the long haul, only the duration of their term's performance review. They behave as CEO's tasked with pleasuring shareholders immediate gratification at the expense of company health. Witness the 80's hence forth-- we're not really building anything anymore. There isn't stability. Money is made on deals and when money moves so break companies apart, reassemble them into new conglomerates, then break them apart all over again. Ride out reputations and outsource distasteful jobs to st elsewhere. Government can't mimic this path without destroying america as we know it. Progressives have legitimate issue with this mentality ruling DC. Sometimes we've got to eat our veggies and make the tough calls as adults no matter how distasteful. How odd that progressives are begging for conservation from incumbents labeled right.
3. Schumer swapping spit with the right is no surprise to me. What surprising is how liberal america assumes NY'rs are as rule. The general complaints I hear from both sides of the aisle are DINO's and RINO's. I'm neither. I'm centrist, so I'm pleased when both sides come together respectfully in the middle for compromises. Displeasure over this phenomena is about party principles that never get served completely in the mistaken belief that any extreme can 'win' their way. Worse yet they're assumed at having duped their constituency or failed to represent the party in all or nothing propositions. Purist sense of the expression (should either of these parties fully exert philosophy as rule of law) would make everyone extremely miserable equally. I strongly believe that should either party materialize it's highest goals the result would be frankenstein.
4. Deregulation oversight- I'll get back with you because I'm pressed for time.
I believe more americans are moderates/centrists than either party would care to acknowledge because it would threaten their cozy 2 party existence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
