Quote:

---

If you are anti government intervention does that mean they should have just let the banks fail?

---

Absolutely... I've made that point a number of times here . AMHD is notoriously bad as far as finding past comments but I'll do my best to dig them .Basically I go into detail about the elimination of moral hazard and the willingness to take unreasonable risk knowing a bailout was in the offering if things go south .


To start... this one is the most recent one... but I argued against bailout or as we called it here "TARP" (the toxic asset relief program where not one toxic asset was relieved ) since Oct 2008.
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...us-610438.html

Quote:

---

No, I'm not saying that it is the role of government to ensure success. Rather that it is not their role to undermine it by punitively taxing the masses to dig us out of a hole dug by the bankers

---

I also write of regulations implemented by the government intent on doing some command and control of the real estate market for the purpose of advancing a social agenda that caused the market problems . In fact it was not lack of regulation ;but as you correctly identified bad regulation that was the problem.

Sorry Tom, but the tarp did relieve the toxic assets from the banks books and holds them until they can be unwound and rectified so they can be put back as positive assets and sold as safe. But the problem really is that the whole financial market was deregulated and exploited in a very greedy manner and blew up the whole freaking economy, and even after the disaster they are fighting to keep doing what they did before, because they are not going to be re regulated anytime soon.

Thanks repubs, for watering down the safety regulations and calling them a failure. Bust up the banks, between investments, financial services, and depositors, and have derivatives fully disclosed, and rated accurately, not only would the market be fair, but less risky for investors and borrowers.

The banks took a good idea, and made it dirty from greed. Letting the fox guard the hen house is what got us here. The government NEVER told the banks to use underhanded trick to get people into houses they couldn't afford, quite the contrary, the banks steered people into new unfairly priced homes and charged fees upfront, and then bought INSURANCE to maximize profits when rising interests and balloon payments became due a year or two later.

They also let people combine their debts with their mortgages by refinancing longer established home owners to drain the equity that was built up over years from the home to their pockets.

Financial over reach, which had nothing to do with government, but crooks gaming the system. Knee jerk reaction isn't the way to get that money back, but taxing some rich guys who benefited this robbery would help relieve a lot of pain.

I agree with Tal it is time to tax the corporate criminals in fact to confiscate their assets, whether that be corporations or individuals and if that means bank failure, that's tough but fair. Until you put criminals out of business you will continue to have corporate crime, so calling fraud a failure of regulation is an ultimate copout

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Tut you find it difficult to understand because your system of laws are not based on a constutution that enumerates certain rights .
Now it is true that corporations don't have the same degree of rights as a physical person . But they absolutely do have the same rights as a 'legal person'(persona ficta).

---

No, they have rights far above what any individual would hope to have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder

Your laws ,regardless if based on a constitution or not recognizes rights to persona ficta. It's simply a tradition of western law.

---

Disagree with this.

Unless you can show me otherwise I would say that few countries in the Western tradition would come to the conclusion that corporations have certain rights as a person. Not in this country anyway. I would say your country would be an exception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder

Now that's resolved the only debate is if such an assembly of individuals assembled into corporation should have a right to petition and influence the government that individuals do . If such a collection of people do not have that right then I also can advance the proposition that political parties ;unions ,trade associations like the Teachers unions ;various lawyer guilds etc simularily do not have that right.

---

As stated above I don't think it is resolved.

In my opinion corporate personhood in your country was badly given and supported by the legal systems in place. It allows corporations too much power and thus enabling them to be the real power behind government.

I understand the role of representative government and the role bodies as trade unions to try and influence government decisions. What I have been saying all along is that this representation is disproportional. It is disproportional because of the legal status you endow upon the artificial person. Yes,it is true that other bodies enjoy the same legal status but this does not make it a level playing field. Far from it.


Tut

You are right TUT, but the guys with the loot want the power that their loot can buy. So they steal your loot to buy their power. That includes buying the judges too! Just to hedge their bets in their favor.

That's a huge problem.

2 Presidents both came in in a down economy . 1 had a business friendly economic plan . 1 doesn't like buisiness and has policies that punish buiness. One in Sept of his 3rd year had 100,000 new jobs (Obama ) .One had 1million new jobs in Sept of his 3rd yead (Reagan) .
The Reagan expansion continued.

So who's model should the country follow again ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

So who's model should the country follow again ?

---

Hello again, tom:

Your comparison is as shoddy as calling my WIN at Monopoly last night a viable economic model, and comparing it to the economy Obama inherited.

But, I'm used to your wing making up its own history.

excon

Tom you apply such false logic to economic outcomes

Ex you are right.. my facts were wrong... it was actually 1.1 million jobs.

Clete what is false about results ? The month Obama took office, unemployment was 7.8 percent.

Obama’s third September in office he created 103,000 jobs .He saw that as an improvement because it was better than the zero jobs created in August, but not large enough to bring down the unemployment rate or to make a claim that we are in recovery.

My logic claims that the Obama anti-business rhetoric ,executive orders ,and regulations are directly responsible for the slow to no recovery. The numbers don't lie . Back in Reagan's day they were concerned about the economy over heating and were talking of ways to slow it down.

By my logic Tom, it's the republicans policy of obstruction, and just say NO, to whatever the president proposes that has stopped a full recovery of this economy.

But I can understand that's the only hope of regaining the white house with the motley crew they have to depend on. King Reagan had a congress that was willing to work with him, Mr Obama does NOT.

What he said

Sorry the President's policies are wrong... that's why the Republicans won't go along with ridiculous spending plans that are already proven to be a formula to failure .

Ah Tom the formula for failure is partisanism.

Then tell that to Obama while he's there .It was his policies ,passed in his 1st 2 years ,that are the failure of today. Republicans were shut out of all the input into things like 'cash for clunkers' ,the stimulus bucket list ,and Obamacare . It is the President and the Dems who have failed .

Perhaps we should take a different tact... they WANT to live in the Park... we we erect a TALL chain link fence completely around the park... to "protect" them from all the homeless people they have such a disdain for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Sorry the President's policies are wrong ...that's why the Republicans won't go along with rediculous spending plans that are already proven to be a formula to failure .

---

Hello again, tom:

Here's why you're going to lose this debate, and the OWS'rs are going to win.

SAYING that spending for repairing bridges and roads is ridiculous, IS RIDICULOUS. It's something the government is going to have to do anyway, and the people are catching on... Fixing roads and repairing bridges DOES WORK. How can it not? Your right wing blinders are showing themselves again.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

Here's why you're gonna lose this debate, and the OWS'rs are gonna win.

SAYING that spending for repairing bridges and roads is ridiculous, IS RIDICULOUS. It's something the government is going to have to do anyway, and the people are catching on... Fixing roads and repairing bridges DOES WORK. How can it not? Your right wing blinders are showing themselves again.

---

Yeah, so we can have a brand new round of Obama promotional signs. You know of course that most of what Obama does is about him, not the American people.

If the infrastructure repair was going to be the thing that got us out of the Obama depression then he should've done it in the original bucket list . All the money we had for phony pump priming has already been spent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

All the money we had for phony pump priming has already been spent.

---

Hello again, tom:

Ok, then let's pass an emergency tax increase on the wealthy. Do YOU want to drive on a bridge that needs repair?? It doesn't care that you're a right winger. When it crashes, it's going to kill Republicans and Democrats alike.

excon

I don't know where it is a Federal Government responsibility to make sure all roads and bridges are in a state of repair. If for instance the State of Massa~tax~us decided to build a boondoggle tunnel that costs... oh let's say $22 billion (most of it in costs over runs) ;then why should tax payers in Texas pay for it ?

Look ;the days of WPA building Hoover Dams are days gone by. Today's construction projects goes to a very elite and minority group of workers... unionized workers who are part of the reason why costs for such projects are so inflated .
There is no way that huge Robin Hood punative taxation of a small group will do the job of pulling the economy out of the cr@pper .

Reagan showed the way . Make a friendly environment to private business and the exconomy will recover .