Forget about creeping socialism

W

WINEX_IHB

New member
We are about to be steamrolled by outright communism.





<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/us/politics/04text-obama.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/us/politics/04text-obama.html</a>



Finally, these guidelines we're putting in place are only the beginning of a long-term effort. We're going to examine the ways in which the means and manner of executive compensation have contributed to a reckless culture and quarter-by-quarter mentality that in turn have wrought havoc in our financial system. We're going to be taking a look at broader reforms so that executives are compensated for sound risk management and rewarded for growth measured over years, not just days or weeks.
 
Seems somewhat fair. People at the bottom on welfare have to follow govt rules (ex. <A href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/us/02welfare.html?em">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/us/02welfare.html?em</A>) forcing them to work in ways they don't like. Why should CEOs on govt corporate welfare be exempt from govt workplace rules?



If they don't like the rules, then don't take the corporate welfare (<A href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a7vRpWuhek3k&refer=home">Goldman Sachs Would Like to Repay Treasury, CFO Says </A>).



I rather liked Buffet's idea that CEOs of any company ought to be forced to put more than half of their own personal wealth into the company they were managing. That way they'd have the potential for great reward, but also feel the need for prudence as their own money would be at risk. As Buffett said, stock options are a one way ticket. (ie. they can only increase, not decrease one's wealth. Imagine taking a million of other people's money to Vegas, and being told that you get to keep a percentage of the winnings every hand, but none of the losses. How would you play? It's a great system for the gambler, but a lousy system for the people putting up the million - which in this case is us, the taxpayer as we replace the trillions that were lost at the financial tables.).
 
Re-read the quote. Those guidelines are the beginning of a long term effort. Nowhere does he imply that government regulation will be limited to people/companies who accept government reglation.
 
If the financial company is "Too big to fail" and requires taxpayer money to keep the financial system from falling over - then it's eligible for corporate welfare, regardless of whether or not govt was smart enough to regulate it beforehand (ie. if taxpayers are bailing out unregulated "shadow banks" as well as regular banks, then they need govt oversight).



It's as simple as that.
 
"This is America. We don't disparage wealth. We don't begrudge anybody for achieving success. And we believe that success should be rewarded. But what gets people upset ? and rightfully so ? are executives being rewarded for failure. Especially when those rewards are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers."



Bonuses that are paid out irrespective of financial performance is the direct result of corrupt corporate Boards. If the system worked properly, this could never happen since shareholders are supposed to monitor just this type of thing. There shouldn't be any need for government intervention.



Clearly, the system ain't workin' the way it's supposed to. So other than what Obama is driving toward here, what is a more appropriate and effective solution? And in the meantime, how do we mitigate what is already in place?
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1233803218]Re-read the quote. Those guidelines are the beginning of a long term effort. Nowhere does he imply that government regulation will be limited to people/companies who accept government reglation.</blockquote>


Nowhere does he imply that these regulations will extend to every corporation in the country. I'm all for being skeptical on this administration but the kind of assumptions you are making are becoming ludicrous.



What are you going to argue next? That he didn't explicitly say that there won't be collective ownership of the means of production? This is getting ridiculous.
 
Typical Conservative Fear Mongering.











<object width="325" height="250"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/youtube" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="325" height="250"></embed></object>
 
[quote author="irvinesinglemom" date=1233808599]"

Clearly, the system ain't workin' the way it's supposed to. So other than what Obama is driving toward here, what is a more appropriate and effective solution? And in the meantime, how do we mitigate what is already in place?</blockquote>


It's a radical idea that hasn't been tried yet during the credit crunch, but maybe we should try letting the market work it's way. Creation and destruction are integral to the system of capitalism. Perverting that system through government sponsored interference is what got us where we are in the first place. The first rule of holes dictates that when you find yourself stuck deep in a hole, the first thing you should do is stop digging.



It's well past time to stop digging.
 
Winex.



Be careful for what you wish for. The Treasury Markets are not that far from serious trouble.

The long bond futures have tanked roughly 14 points in a straight line since December. What happens when the rest of this planet no longer buys our nations debt ?

The only "out" left is to print more money. It could get real ugly real quick.
 
[quote author="bltserv" date=1233814152]Winex.



Be careful for what you wish for. The Treasury Markets are not that far from serious trouble.

The long bond futures have tanked roughly 14 points in a straight line since December. What happens when the rest of this planet no longer buys our nations debt ?

The only "out" left is to print more money. It could get real ugly real quick.</blockquote>
You've got it backwards: The long bonds are tanking because the rest of the planet is realizing that the only "out" left is to print money. As more details emerge from the House's stimulus plan, the clearer it is becoming that the US is not going to fix it's problems, it is going to paper over them... with dollars. That we are fixated on executive compensation at insolvent institutions is clear evidence of that.
 
[quote author="Anonymous" date=1233807112]If the financial company is "Too big to fail" and requires taxpayer money to keep the financial system from falling over - then it's eligible for corporate welfare, regardless of whether or not govt was smart enough to regulate it beforehand (ie. if taxpayers are bailing out unregulated "shadow banks" as well as regular banks, then they need govt oversight).



It's as simple as that.</blockquote>


No. It is not as simple as that, because it is a mistaken assumption that the banks are too big too fail. They do not require taxpayer money. They require bankruptcy and dissolution. And fair is the solvent, responsible banks taking the insolvent banks business without the government bailing out the insolvent banks resulting in non-competition. Lenin could not have done any better than Bush, Paulson, Bernanke, and now Obama at creating central planning.



How often do you hear in the MSM that we can't let the banks fail and that it will cause a catastrophe? This is the catastrophe. Rewarding failure, irresponsibility, and theft is the catastrophe. Failure of the banking and financial institutions, and the Federal Reserve would be the start to sound monetary policy.



Does no one know what this country was founded on and what made it great?
 
[quote author="awgee" date=1233821247][quote author="Anonymous" date=1233807112]If the financial company is "Too big to fail" and requires taxpayer money to keep the financial system from falling over - then it's eligible for corporate welfare, regardless of whether or not govt was smart enough to regulate it beforehand (ie. if taxpayers are bailing out unregulated "shadow banks" as well as regular banks, then they need govt oversight).



It's as simple as that.</blockquote>


No. It is not as simple as that, because it is a mistaken assumption that the banks are too big too fail. They do not require taxpayer money. They require bankruptcy and dissolution. And fair is the solvent, responsible banks taking the insolvent banks business without the government bailing out the insolvent banks resulting in non-competition. Lenin could not have done any better than Bush, Paulson, Bernanke, and now Obama at creating central planning.



How often do you hear in the MSM that we can't let the banks fail and that it will cause a catastrophe? This is the catastrophe. Rewarding failure, irresponsibility, and theft is the catastrophe. Failure of the banking and financial institutions, and the Federal Reserve would be the start to sound monetary policy.



Does no one know what this country was founded on and what made it great?</blockquote>


Don't forget to give Greenspan his proper share of blame.



It's amazing how much press Bernie Madoff generates. The $50 billion Ponzi scheme he ran is chump change compared to what's going on now. (And if we are to believe Pelosi, we will lose 500 million American jobs if we don't pass the porkfest legislation going through Congress)
 
[quote author="irvinesinglemom" date=1233808599]"This is America. We don't disparage wealth. We don't begrudge anybody for achieving success. And we believe that success should be rewarded. But what gets people upset ? and rightfully so ? are executives being rewarded for failure. Especially when those rewards are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers."



Bonuses that are paid out irrespective of financial performance is the direct result of corrupt corporate Boards. If the system worked properly, this could never happen since shareholders are supposed to monitor just this type of thing. There shouldn't be any need for government intervention.



Clearly, the system ain't workin' the way it's supposed to. So other than what Obama is driving toward here, what is a more appropriate and effective solution? And in the meantime, how do we mitigate what is already in place?</blockquote>


It is government intervention in banking and banking control of government that got us here. Mitigation of what is in place is like giving heroin to a heroin addict to allieve withdrawal. Sure, it will temporarily relieve the pain, but the "cure" will just worsen the disease, and will eventually kill the patient. Ya can't fix a debt and spending problem with more credit and spending.
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1233821600][quote author="awgee" date=1233821247][quote author="Anonymous" date=1233807112]If the financial company is "Too big to fail" and requires taxpayer money to keep the financial system from falling over - then it's eligible for corporate welfare, regardless of whether or not govt was smart enough to regulate it beforehand (ie. if taxpayers are bailing out unregulated "shadow banks" as well as regular banks, then they need govt oversight).



It's as simple as that.</blockquote>


No. It is not as simple as that, because it is a mistaken assumption that the banks are too big too fail. They do not require taxpayer money. They require bankruptcy and dissolution. And fair is the solvent, responsible banks taking the insolvent banks business without the government bailing out the insolvent banks resulting in non-competition. Lenin could not have done any better than Bush, Paulson, Bernanke, and now Obama at creating central planning.



How often do you hear in the MSM that we can't let the banks fail and that it will cause a catastrophe? This is the catastrophe. Rewarding failure, irresponsibility, and theft is the catastrophe. Failure of the banking and financial institutions, and the Federal Reserve would be the start to sound monetary policy.



Does no one know what this country was founded on and what made it great?</blockquote>


Don't forget to give Greenspan his proper share of blame.



It's amazing how much press Bernie Madoff generates. The $50 billion Ponzi scheme he ran is chump change compared to what's going on now. (And if we are to believe Pelosi, we will lose 500 million American jobs if we don't pass the porkfest legislation going through Congress)</blockquote>


Oops, how could I have left out Greenspan, maybe the biggest perpetrator of treason our country has known.
 
[quote author="awgee" date=1233821247][quote author="Anonymous" date=1233807112]If the financial company is "Too big to fail" and requires taxpayer money to keep the financial system from falling over - then it's eligible for corporate welfare, regardless of whether or not govt was smart enough to regulate it beforehand (ie. if taxpayers are bailing out unregulated "shadow banks" as well as regular banks, then they need govt oversight).



It's as simple as that.</blockquote>


No. It is not as simple as that, because it is a mistaken assumption that the banks are too big too fail. They do not require taxpayer money. They require bankruptcy and dissolution. And fair is the solvent, responsible banks taking the insolvent banks business without the government bailing out the insolvent banks resulting in non-competition. Lenin could not have done any better than Bush, Paulson, Bernanke, and now Obama at creating central planning.



How often do you hear in the MSM that we can't let the banks fail and that it will cause a catastrophe? This is the catastrophe. Rewarding failure, irresponsibility, and theft is the catastrophe. Failure of the banking and financial institutions, and the Federal Reserve would be the start to sound monetary policy.



Does no one know what this country was founded on and what made it great?</blockquote>


If there were no bailout and no regulation, you are correct, there would be no need for govt oversight.



However, Hoover tried that, and the result was so much economic despair that the US nearly disappeared into social chaos - as the old joke by Roosevelt goes, someone said to him if he solved the country's problems, he'd be remembered as a great president. His reply was that if he failed to solve the country's problems, he'd be remembered as the last president ...



Hence, the need for the banking oversight & regulation.
 
[quote author="Anonymous" date=1233825334][quote author="awgee" date=1233821247][quote author="Anonymous" date=1233807112]If the financial company is "Too big to fail" and requires taxpayer money to keep the financial system from falling over - then it's eligible for corporate welfare, regardless of whether or not govt was smart enough to regulate it beforehand (ie. if taxpayers are bailing out unregulated "shadow banks" as well as regular banks, then they need govt oversight).



It's as simple as that.</blockquote>


No. It is not as simple as that, because it is a mistaken assumption that the banks are too big too fail. They do not require taxpayer money. They require bankruptcy and dissolution. And fair is the solvent, responsible banks taking the insolvent banks business without the government bailing out the insolvent banks resulting in non-competition. Lenin could not have done any better than Bush, Paulson, Bernanke, and now Obama at creating central planning.



How often do you hear in the MSM that we can't let the banks fail and that it will cause a catastrophe? This is the catastrophe. Rewarding failure, irresponsibility, and theft is the catastrophe. Failure of the banking and financial institutions, and the Federal Reserve would be the start to sound monetary policy.



Does no one know what this country was founded on and what made it great?</blockquote>


If there were no bailout and no regulation, you are correct, there would be no need for govt oversight.



However, Hoover tried that, and the result was so much economic despair that the US nearly disappeared into social chaos - as the old joke by Roosevelt goes, someone said to him if he solved the country's problems, he'd be remembered as a great president. His reply was that if he failed to solve the country's problems, he'd be remembered as the last president ...



Hence, the need for the banking oversight & regulation.</blockquote>


Wrong again. Hoover tried one interventionist policy after another, and they all failed. History has been rewritten to ignore facts and lionize Roosevelt.
 
[quote author="awgee" date=1233831543][quote author="Anonymous" date=1233825334][quote author="awgee" date=1233821247][quote author="Anonymous" date=1233807112]If the financial company is "Too big to fail" and requires taxpayer money to keep the financial system from falling over - then it's eligible for corporate welfare, regardless of whether or not govt was smart enough to regulate it beforehand (ie. if taxpayers are bailing out unregulated "shadow banks" as well as regular banks, then they need govt oversight).



It's as simple as that.</blockquote>


No. It is not as simple as that, because it is a mistaken assumption that the banks are too big too fail. They do not require taxpayer money. They require bankruptcy and dissolution. And fair is the solvent, responsible banks taking the insolvent banks business without the government bailing out the insolvent banks resulting in non-competition. Lenin could not have done any better than Bush, Paulson, Bernanke, and now Obama at creating central planning.



How often do you hear in the MSM that we can't let the banks fail and that it will cause a catastrophe? This is the catastrophe. Rewarding failure, irresponsibility, and theft is the catastrophe. Failure of the banking and financial institutions, and the Federal Reserve would be the start to sound monetary policy.



Does no one know what this country was founded on and what made it great?</blockquote>


If there were no bailout and no regulation, you are correct, there would be no need for govt oversight.



However, Hoover tried that, and the result was so much economic despair that the US nearly disappeared into social chaos - as the old joke by Roosevelt goes, someone said to him if he solved the country's problems, he'd be remembered as a great president. His reply was that if he failed to solve the country's problems, he'd be remembered as the last president ...



Hence, the need for the banking oversight & regulation.</blockquote>


Wrong again. Hoover tried one interventionist policy after another, and they all failed. History has been rewritten to ignore facts and lionize Roosevelt.</blockquote>


Whoever fixed it - the moral is if things get really, really bad and a fairly large proportion of the population has nothing to lose - lawlessness ensues - and that means the capitalist is going to lose everything to the mob. Not a good plan for those with the capital ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top