 |
Fair enough, but don't you think that the 'ruling elites' are worth going after? I certainly didn't expect anyone to believe me when I raised the issue a number of times in the past.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
'Ruling elites' could easily be considered a throwaway term, but when a 'right wing' academic makes similar claims... Well, don't you think they are of worthwhile significance?
Tut
Codevilla is clear that he pins the intellectual origins of the 'ruling elite 'on the progressive movement dating back to Wilsonian times. So if it is a matter of both sides feeding the beast ;he would more than likely pin the blame on progressive liberal Democrats ,and non-conservative Repubis... RINOs who would like to continue the current Leviathan ,thus protecting their own status . I've read subsequent interviews of Codevilla ,and he definitely has some Tea Party sympathies .
Capitalism and the free markets is the domain of the ruling elites, and supply side economics is their favored tool of extractionism. They have decide NOT to trickle their success down, and they are defended by those that benefit from that choice, the lawmaker they have bought, not just here but around the world. That's why the debt, deficit are but distractions from the real life solving of immediate problems that hold us back, unemployment and corporate welfare.
I have been railing against the ruling elite and the oligarchy they have created since day one of these threads, and will continue to argue the obvious, We were ROBBED, and need to get the varmits that did it and put 'em in jail, and get our money back!!
Clearly you are wrong. Tut will tell you that the ruling elites are not engaged in capitalism and the free market at all. More to the truth ;the relationship between the ruling elites and the economy is state managed rent seeking cronyism .I argue it more resembles national socialism ;but whatever it's called ,it isn't free market.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Whatever name you call it, the main point is who controls it.
That was the point of my comment, you rail against it but support the progressives and their populist pretense who engage in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I support allowing the demand to be put back into the economic equation through circulation while you think the nanny state makes people dependent. Taxing the one that stole is something I support, and ending corporate welfare. Unlike you who think that balancing a budget on the backs of woman, children, and old people, and the poor is okay.
The broken business model creates poor people who need assistance. Wall Street and the banks have long since weened themselves from the American economy for cheap third world nations and governments, after they sucked us dry.
Stop pretending you even know what progressives want because obviously you don't. You rather let people be beholden to the charity of the rich elite and the CHURCH.
Right on cue.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I hear there are some very progressive people among the Republicans Tal, at the moment they appear to be advancing to the rear but that maybe a tactic to fool us all, no doubt a very progressive fillabuster will be unveiled and another year of unprogress will ensueQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Oh they are there . Just look at the over the top reaction by McCain and Lindsey Graham to the Rand Paul filibuster .
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
This is pretty much my view, but I would actually go a bit further.
Corporatism is another name for modern capitalism. Corporatism is nothing like free market capitalism. Capitalism and free markets are terms that have probably become redundant in this day and age.
Yes it is cronyism. Both parties have their corporate cronies to pander to. You can call it national socialism if you like but I think corporatist politics is more like a feudal system.
Political corporatism is far more insidious and far more invasive than free market capitalism. If Tal replaced "free market capitalism" with "political corporatism" then he makes some very good points.
I have elaborated on a definition of political corporatism in the past. I won't go into that again unless requested.
Tut
Some more on the unintended consequences of the horrible Dodd-Frank Law...
FDIC Report: Dodd-Frank's Costly Rules Are Killing Community Banks - Investors.comQuote:
The Dodd-Frank Act was supposed to end "too big to fail" banking. But the costly red tape it's dumping on the industry is only causing more consolidation and concentration.
A new report by the FDIC shows community banks, already struggling from the weak economy, are having a hard time wading through the tsunami of new financial rules.
In fact, the regulatory burden has halted the growth of these smaller banks in their tracks. No new community bank charters have been granted since 2011 due in large part to Dodd-Frank.
And the FDIC says the "full impact" from the law won't be known for several years. That's because the worst is yet to come.
To sum it up... our attempts to impose further regulation on the financial sector are leading to even more consolidation and concentration in banking ,leading to larger financial institutions that will be deemed "too big to fail" . Bigger banks are in a better position to absorb the costs of regulatory compliance compared to their smaller competitors, which is why they don't object to their imposition and sometimes even embrace or even advocate them .Quote:
The law has spawned a cottage industry — dubbed Dodd-Frank Inc. — just to cope with all the new rules.
The regulatory onslaught is a boon only for lawyers and government workers.
Implementing Dodd-Frank required 2,850 additional federal employees just in its first two years — at a cost to taxpayers of $1.3 billion.
That's exactly right.
Hello again, tom:
I don't know. If the banks KNEW that they'd be broken up IF they consolidated, they WOULDN'T consolidate.Quote:
To sum it up... our attempts to impose further regulation on the financial sector are leading to even more consolidation and concentration in banking ,leading to larger financial institutions that will be deemed "too big to fail"
We need to start running THEM, instead of them running US.
Excon
That's fine with me . That would be structural reform( like returning Glass- Steagall)... not regulate the small ones out of business.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I fully agree with Glass-Steagall, but regulating small banks out of business I would have to investigate further because I think the big banks are the enemy of the small banks more than any regulation, correct me if I am wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The big banks would not be buying up the small ones if the owners of the small ones weren't putting the banks up for sale. The FDIC report suggests that owners of small banks are increasingly burdened by regulation and cannot afford compliance. The report said that the big banks can hire the extra regulatory staff ;and even outside consultants to interpret all the new laws. The small one's can't .
Not that I disagree but a link to that report would be helpful to me, but I have these reports I have been studying.
U.S. GAO - Financial Institutions: Causes and Consequences of Recent Failures of Community Banks
http://www.heterodoxnews.com/htnf/htn71/10466211.pdf
They both deal with the real processes of bank management up to and through out the financial down turn.
Sure... here is the key paragraph from Apendix B of the report (to save you a lot of reading )http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/reso...t/cbi-full.pdfQuote:
Interview participants were asked several questions to determine what drives regulatory compliance costs at their institution and, specifically, which rules, regulations, and supervisory practices had the greatest effect on their operations. Most interview participants stated that no one regulation or practice had a significant effect on their institution. Instead, most stated that the strain on their organization came from the cumulative effects of all the regulatory requirements that have built up over time. To support this statement, many of the interview participants indicated that they have increased staff over the past ten years to support the enhanced responsibility associated with regulatory compliance. In addition, at least one-half of the interview participants noted that because of the cumulative effects of regulations on their institution, the amount of time each employee, not just those focused solely on compliance, spent completing duties associated with regulatory compliance had increased over the past 5 years
Well what do you want to know? Regulation is a growth industry. You can't have laws without growth in compliance costs
Did anyone notice this or am I just behind?
Yep, that Dodd-Frank certainly solved the problem.Quote:
Attorney General Eric Holder suggested Wednesday that some financial institutions have become too large and are escaping full-fledged prosecution as a result.
Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Holder told lawmakers that he is concerned that some institutions have become so massive and influential that bringing criminal charges against them could imperil the financial system and the broader economy. His remarks come as a growing number of lawmakers have suggested that big banks are, effectively, "too big to jail."
"I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy," he said. "And I think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large."
Read more: Holder: Big banks' size complicates prosecution efforts - The Hill's On The Money
Having a process to unravel the big banks and be able to check and see if they are obeying the rules is the problem? Dodd-Frank doesn't go far enough, nor is it enforced vigoriously enough.
Holder's term as AG will be defined by who he did not prosecute... what laws he won't defend. .
Guess the man knows a bad law when he sees one
Hello Mr. Magnanimous right winger:
Let's pretend, for a moment, that the situation was reversed. Bill Clinton got gay marriage through, but it got challenged. Now, George W. Bush is put in the position of DEFENDING gay marriage, and you're telling me, that he WOULD??Quote:
Holder's term as AG will be defined by who he did not prosecute... what laws he won't defend. .
Who, in the real, world BELIEVES that?
Excon
Show me the example when a case went to SCOTUS and a representative of the government didn't defend a constitutional challenge to a law. Maybe there are some I'm not aware of ;but I think this is an administration of firsts .All these standing questions the last 2 days are the result of someone other than the governments involved being the proponent of the law.
So whether it's a good law, or a bad law, the government should defend it? What's wrong with changing a bad law?
Sodomy, and interracial marriage come to mind of bad laws that had to be reversed. Renewing regulations for big banks and stripping away layers of accountability and culpability is a HUGE challenge with HUGE opposition and TREMENDOUS risks. Bonehead, an agent of government (the house) has authorized a million bucks to defend DOMA even if the president is against it.
You may not like all the "hope and change" but the debates are getting much hotter, and that in itself will bring changes.
Indeed ;a bad law should be changed ;by the legislative branch. What you want is for SCOTUS to act like the legislative branch.Quote:
What's wrong with changing a bad law?
Interracial marriage was real discrimination. Changing the definition of marriage to satisy another special interest is a completely different issue.Quote:
Sodomy, and interracial marriage come to mind of bad laws that had to be reversed.
and thus the questions of standing by the justicesQuote:
Bonehead, an agent of government (the house) has authorized a million bucks to defend DOMA even if the president is against it.
Quote:
What's wrong with changing a bad law?
Naw, they don't make law, they can only rule its constitutionality of the law.Quote:
indeed ;a bad law should be changed ;by the legislative branch. What you want is for SCOTUS to act like the legislative branch.
Quote:
Sodomy, and interracial marriage come to mind of bad laws that had to be reversed.
No again, it was the legislature that tried to narrow the definition of marriage to EXCLUDE a segment of citizens (gays), as pushed by a special interest group, the church.Quote:
interracial marriage was real discrimination. Changing the definition of marriage to satisy another special interest is a completely different issue.
Quote:
Bonehead, an agent of government (the house) has authorized a million bucks to defend DOMA even if the president is against it.
Can't wait for the final ruling in June/July. A narrow ruling on Prop 8, and DOMA struck down, is my take. They could also punt on Prop 8, and let the ruling in a lower court stand.Quote:
and thus the questions of standing by the justices
I don't know that sodomy laws are so bad, if we're going to regulate things like sodas, cigarettes and the like because of the health consequences and the COST to the rest of us why not sex? You know how much HIV drugs cost? Epzicom is like $25 a pill... and you're paying for it.
Steve ,you don't get it .Gays are a privilaged group and their behavior is subsidized . Other behaviors, like individuals who over eat, are making life style choices that will get penalized . Maybe the obese can convince the death panel that they were born that way.
Hello again, tom:
You'd have a little credibility IF you can tell me that you chose heterosexuality. Of course, you can't, but that won't make a difference.. You won't let REAL LIFE experience interfere with what your church is telling you...Quote:
Maybe the obese can convince the death panel that they were born that way.
I am SOOO glad that I can think for myself..
Excon
I got science on my side. Obamacare and nanny bloomy discriminate against people who can't help it.. They were born this way .
The obese can
HIV is not just a result of sodomy, sharing needles, and consorting with prostitutes, or being transfused with contaminated blood were higher risk factors. And somebody is paying for your viagra and penis pump too!Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
How are gays privileged? How are they subidized? Why should obese people be penalized, and who will penalize them?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
That's the problem ex, they are shrinking, and independent thinking is growing. We should have made them inhale sothey could expand their thinking if even for an hour.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
EUREKA! I have found a cure for right wing uptightness... Two hits and call me in an hour!!
Well then, all risky behaviors that need to be banned. Seriously, how do you decide which behaviors are acceptable and which aren't? You can't just ban MY favorite.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Will they be penalized for their risky lifestyle ? The Obese will. Doctors are required to take weight ,BMI ,blood sugar tests ;and based on those results ,the government will make treatment decisions for them (or deny treatment ) . Will gays be denied care ? No ,they will get free condoms .We will pay for their risky behavior ,and they will not be told to pay a premium for their insurance like the obese or smokers will.Quote:
How are gays privileged? How are they subidized? Why should obese people be penalized, and who will penalize them?
SO, you assume ALL gays indulge in risky behavior? I respectfully disagree and submit that heteterosexuals engage in risky behavior just as much. Maybe on average MORE.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Or drinkers? But insurance companies have always discriminated on the basis of what you call risky behavior in the first place. What you think being gay will let them off the hook off paying more money for premiums? Your premiums will go up regardless of your behavior. More if they can put a label on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
If insurance companies can charge you more for NO reason, then surely they will find a reason to charge you more for anything they can come up with, including risky behavior, gay, straight, or just plain YOUNG, or old.
Of that I'm certain ;but that was the design of Obamacare in the first place... destroy the private insurance system ,and replace it with a European takeover of all health services by the state . The left is counting on this to collapse the whole thing .Quote:
Your premiums will go up regardless of your behavior
I'd like to respectfully point out I didn't associate any behavior to gays, period. I only spoke of risky behaviors. Stick to the point, which other risky behaviors are you going to ban and crack down on due to their risk factors and associated cost to health care? Skiing? Skydiving? Unprotected sex? Recreational drug use? Driving? What and why, why should smokers be punished for their risk factors and not the congressman buying prostitutes?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I totally reject the whole concept of risky behavior by any group. I think premiums should be capped and only congress can approve of them being raised. And they better have the financial reports to backup any claims for higher premiums.
It the insurance companies exploiting individuals, and groups that started this crap in the first place.
Was that clear enough?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:55 PM. |