Hello:

By the power vested in me, I hereby pronounce you GOVERNMENT REGULATORS. Your first task is to regulate the BANKING industry. In that role, would you support rules that protected the bank, or their customers?

Vote once. Your vote will be anonymous.

I ask because there are some amongst us who believed Ronald Reagan when he said, "Government isn't the SOLUTION. Government is the PROBLEM." If that's so, it should be reflected in the poll. If you have any remarks, I'd LOVE to hear them.

excon

If I'm boss the 1st thing I do is cut staff by a min. 20%

Then I subdivide into 2 depts that don't have to deal with competing mandates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

If I'm boss the 1st thing I do is cut staff by a min. 20%

Then I subdivide into 2 depts that don't have to deal with competing mandates.

---

Hello tom:

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Screw the administration stuff! I want to know how you're going to RULE?

excon

Who knows ? I'd probably spend all my time reading the volumes of regulatory code . I'd separate it from code that regulators of the past concocted and that which is mandated by Congress. Then as an administrator ;I'd run my dept at the pleasure of the President ;and if I disagreed with policy ,I'd resign if could not convince the President mine was a better way. In no case would I do the typical bs that regulators do ;entrenching and waiting out a POTUS ,or actively seeking to undermine POTUS policy.

The truth is that almost every agency in the Federal Government has dual mandates to regulate and to support the industries under their perusal. I didn't create the system and that is why I said in my original answer that I would do something about this obvious conflict of interests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I'd run my dept at the pleasure of the President ;and if I disagreed with policy ,I'd resign if could not convince the President mine was a better way.

---

Hello again, tom:

Let's cut to the chase. I got it. In the real world, you wouldn't accept a job working for Obama. But, THIS ain't the real world. I think you're avoiding the question, because even you, don't like your answer. After all, you ARE a consumer. You HAVE credit cards. You receive those notices from your bank that are printed in little teeny letters and REALLY, REALLY long, all done so that you WON'T read it. You know the bank SCREWS its customers.

But, in your heart, you're a conservative who doesn't believe the banks should be regulated AT ALL. You just don't want to say so, cause it embarrasses you - and rightfully so.

excon

Lol it was the liberals who did more than anything else to create these too big to fail banks. You have NEVER heard me defend the excesses that were only permitted because the regulations that were constructed .
The irony is that the Dems thought they were protecting the consumers by their little games . In fact ,they proved our point about excessive regulation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

the excesses that were only permitted because the regulations that were constructed .

---

Hello again, tom:

So, the regulators DID their jobs, but they were hamstrung by the libs... It's a good story, but I ain't buying it.

You're STILL avoiding the question. Let me make it easy for you. Let's say Ronny Raygun asked YOU to run the treasury. You'd work for HIM, wouldn't you?? HE thinks government IS the problem. YOU'D support that proposition, wouldn't you? There ARE REGULATIONS in place that you can CHOOSE to enforce, or you can CHOOSE not to. What would you do?

You're not saying, are you, that as abhorrent as the regulations ARE, you'd hold your nose and ENFORCE them?? Nahhh. You're not saying that... That ain't what happens in the real world. I know what you'd do, and I know what they did.

excon

Quote:

---

So, the regulators DID their jobs, but they were hamstrung by the libs

---

No I did not say that... you did not ask me about the relationship between a bloated bureacracy and corruption inside it. (another case where government is the problem)

I submit to you that there is a revolving door between industry and it's regulators... there has to be.. where would you get the experts about derivitives and other complex financial instruments from otherwise ? I don't care which industry you are regulating it's the same thing. The more complex you make regulation the more you are inviting corruption. I'm not saying that's ideal ;I'm saying that's the way it is . You see it in examples of them dummying up their quota of reports so they can spend their time surfing porn.
Yes Reagan was right .

Ex as a former public servant I can say my job is to protect the consumer but I also agree with the premise that government is the problem, that they have long since abandoned common sense for regulation and so a public servant is bound by regulation.

Your survey asks whether we should protect the banks, the only protection banks need is from themselves. Bank failure is unfortunate and undesirable, therefore regulation must insist on the proper prudential regime in the conduct of the bank's business in order to protect not only the consumer but also the bank. As I have said before common sense is not very common and no more so than in the Board rooms of banks

Nor is common sense common in the vaunted halls of Congress that tried to make the banks financiers of a failed social experiment.

I talked of corruption ,but the old saying still applies... shiite rolls down hill.

The other problem I've identified is entrenchment in the bureaucracy. Look at NATO ,it is an organization without a purpose .But the administrators in Brussels cannot accept that so they met this month in a futile attempt to define a common purpose for the cold war relic .

My solution since I'm being asked is to force Congress to 'term limit' all laws. Congress should then debate their utlity before allowing an extension of a bureaucratic mandate to enforce them.

The purpose of NATO is the same as it has always been, to implement american policy in Europe and no more so that it adopting the very policy than that which america was so recently forced to back down on, the missile shield.

With no way to fight in Europe NATO became the instrument of the US in Afghanistan a policy which yeilded little result. NATO is like the grand old Duke of York in the rhyme, he marched his troops up the hill and he marched them down again
YouTube - The Grand Old Duke Of York

That is patently unfair since the US helped protect the Western European states from Soviet expansion into the West . That was the purpose of NATO and it worked well .

If you followed the news in the recent week then you must've picked up on the 3 way divide . The Atlantic NATO consisting of US UK Canada ,and some of the low land states are more willing to help the US in it's policies in places like Afghanistan but are looking to broaden the NATO mandate.
The continental powers France and Germany would like to confine it local defense and want to appease Russia. The newer members from the former Warsaw Pact would like to keep NATO in it's traditional role of checking the Russians .They see cooperation in Aghanistan as the price they are willing to pay to protect themselves from the Putin expansionist goals.

You are wrong about missile shield .
Each side sees it in a different light. The old Warsaw Pact nations want a shield against Russia. The western nations are concerned about Iranian expansion and want the shield for that reason ;and would include Russia in the agreement.
The US would like to keep the missile shield outside of a NATO commitment and would instead prefer bilateral agreements .

But look at the evolution... 2 decades ago the lefties derided the concept of a missile shield completely... now the only debate is how it should be deployed .

The problem with the choices is that they are mutually exclusive, but the reality isn't. By protecting the banks, one may also be protecting the customers and vice versa.

This was the conundrum faced by the Bush Administration. The choice was bail out the banks and other financial and manufacturing institutions or let the economy go into the tank and face a depression worse than the 30s. But a bailout was also a political risk and constituted a drain on the economy that could have resulted in the same economic meltdown.

It was an easy decision for Bush because it meant propping up his cronies. But it cost the Republicans dearly. Of course the electorate has very short memories. Blaming the Democrats for the problems caused by the Republicans under Bush.

It does appear though, that the decision to prop up the economy has worked. We didn't drop into a depression. The loans are being repaid and the institutions that were bailed out do seem to be recovering. The only question in my mind was whether enough safeguards were put in place to prevent this from happening again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

The problem with the choices is that they are mutually exclusive, but the reality isn't. By protecting the banks, one may also be protecting the customers and vice versa.

This was the conundrum faced by the Bush Administration. The choice was bail out the banks and other financial and manufacturing institutions or let the economy go into the tank and face a depression worse than the 30s. But a bailout was also a political risk and constituted a drain on the economy that could have resulted in the same economic meltdown.

It was an easy decision for Bush because it meant propping up his cronies. But it cost the Republicans dearly. Of course the electorate has very short memories. Blaming the Democrats for the problems caused by the Republicans under Bush.

It does appear though, that the decision to prop up the economy has worked. We didn't drop into a depression. The loans are being repaid and the institutions that were bailed out do seem to be recovering. The only question in my mind was whether enough safeguards were put in place to prevent this from happening again.

---

I suppose when those are the only choices explored then those were the only alternatives . I have yet to be convinced that the doomsday scenario really existed .We'll never really know what would've happened if oh lets say FDIC was propped up and the too big to fail zombies were allowed to fail.

What we do know is that 2 year later they are still zombies holding toxic assets and all they are doing is returning money the Fed gave them for free. Oh yeah... and now we have a bailout nation ;a regulatory system in place that allows the government to seize businesses ;a deficit quadrupled ,and no end in sight to the recession.