Here Come De Judge!

Interesting, Dan

thanks for posting. There is much truth there.

Woodrow Wilson was once asked "can't you let anything alone?"

Wilson responded, "I let everything alone that you can show me is not itself moving in the wrong direction, but I am not going to let those things alone that I see are going down-hill." He is the prototype for all progressives who imagine themselves as the shining examples for all to emulate and who believe themselves to be the reformers of the world... self-appointed though they may be.

Wilson was the first American politician to argue that our Founders had blundered when it had deprived the federal government of the power to remodel America's civil society.
 
Colonel, you have adopted...

a sense of temperance and moderation in your statements-I note that in your second sentence spelled 'truth' appropriately with a lower case 't'. The tone of that sentence puts me in mind of Tonto or maybe more accurately Ten Bears. Bravo:):)
 
So the message is get gov't out of the way?

For the last 20 years or better, gov't has stepped out of the way and let the banks regulate themselves. End result: repeal of banking laws separating investment and savings banks, massive leverage of OPM (other people's money), TBTF, S&P rating CDO's as AAA, trillion dollar bailouts, more centralization of the big banks since 2008, greater concentration of wealth since then and continuing higher unemployment numbers. Business profits up, yes...but corporate spending domestically is down, and overseas investment is where those profits appear to be going. Where's the show-me-the-money that's supposedly coming from all this unregulated economy?

Money and morality? Puh-leeze, I think you're gonna have to look further than what this guy is suggesting.
 
Todd, you really need...

to distill your argument by removing any reference to what has happened and any causal links between/or among various actual events and outcomes. In fact it is better just to avoid anything that isn't in the imperative mood. In fact it is better to avoid anything that can't be written comfortably on a bumper sticker.

Here are some examples to help guide your future responses:

"Government isn't the solution, it's the PROBLEM"
"Government isn't the problem, it's the SOLUTION"

These are just models you understand and I know that, although there is widespread belief in the first without any attached conditionals, it is hard to find a symmetrical belief in the second owing to the fact that those who only partially oppose the first only partially embrace the second. These folks are confused by a lack of committment to Manichean views of the world and tie themselves in knots trying to reconcile too many variables-poor creatures! Don't be among them, eschew this overthinking and get down to brass tacks.
OKAY Big Fella?!!!:):)

The capitalization is real important, so don't forget that.:thumbsup:
 
D'uoh! Sorry fellas.

MY BAD! I'll try to avoid any over-reaching and simplistic probity and moreover reach for my PRIAPIC CERTITUDES in future discourse. (How's them caps?:grin:)

Perhaps I've read far too much of the pesky lefty and righty (?!?! Is it or isn't it?!?!) press, which presents such history and ideas such as I all too hastily summarized in my post. Demonstrably FALLACIOUS, to be sure.:huh2:

Two bumper stickers have graced former cars: "God, Guns and Guts Made America Free" (1972 Ford F150) and "You Think?!" (1963 Mercedes 220SEb Cabriolet). Both stickers were printed in all capital letters.:thumbsup:

I'll try to go with their inspiration. In the meantime, how's about TINY TIM FOR PRESIDENT!!!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skU-jBFzXl0"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skU-jBFzXl0[/ame]
 
TLR said:
For the last 20 years or better, gov't has stepped out of the way and let the banks regulate themselves. End result: repeal of banking laws separating investment and savings banks, massive leverage of OPM (other people's money), TBTF, S&P rating CDO's as AAA, trillion dollar bailouts, more centralization of the big banks since 2008, greater concentration of wealth since then and continuing higher unemployment numbers. Business profits up, yes...but corporate spending domestically is down, and overseas investment is where those profits appear to be going. Where's the show-me-the-money that's supposedly coming from all this unregulated economy?

Money and morality? Puh-leeze, I think you're gonna have to look further than what this guy is suggesting.
Click to expand...

It is an absolute myth that the financial sector was unregulated. However, there is certainly truth to the statement that they "regulated themselves". When you have a powerful government that heavily regulates an industry powerful people in that industry are naturally going to use their influence to corrupt the government and create all sorts of moral hazards in the regulatory system. This is why government regulation is a disaster. It ends up keeping the little guy down, empowering those that least need it and creating a system and will crash and burn. In the free market fear helps to instill discipline that disappears when regulation protects big powerful entities from competition.

There is no problem with investment banks being savings banks as well if their customers cared what the banks were doing with their money. The government stepped in and took the fear out with FDIC so nobody cares anymore. Also, much of the troubles were in the housing market and much of it was fueled by Freddie and Fannie. Both are government created and backed entities. Virtually this entire economic meltdown can be traced back to government being involved where it had no business.
 
Matthew, with all due....

this is just wishful thinking and ahistorical 'analysis'. There was nothing regulating Countrywide's activities that allowed them to originate mortgages to just about anyone. That was not done at the behest of the government's policies to expand home buying to poorer people, it was done under the cover and excuse of that in some cases but most of the dangerous sub-prime loans that they floated were not to poor people at all. It was not a regulatory issue that then had Wall Street turning those loans into incorrectly rated securities and then selling them to investors as bona fide investment grade paper. The government had absolutely nothing to do with the five big investment banks here and the big chartered banks in Britain running debt/capital ratios of anywhere from 20:1 to 35:1 which placed them in a position to collapse if the value of there capital assets decreased by even 5% (that MBS asset decreased in reality by 40% in many cases). The whole meltdown was certainly exacerbated by the actions over at Fannie and Freddie but they too were acting just like everyone else with the added problem of running 100:1 ratios because the criminals who ran it were perfectly aware they were Uncle's favored neice and nephew. But the real collapse mechanism for the thing was the non-regulated actions of the players. They separated risk from reward through the mechanism of MBS which worked great until everyone in the society got too greedy and overloaded the cart and the wheels came off. That's why BoA is shelling out billions to clean up the mess at Countrywide, it is why the other big banks will be doing the same. It is why since the two step backdown from Glass-Steagal the depth and frequency of our finacial crisis have been getting worse starting in 1974 and going right through the S&L debacle and now the latest. The banks are already bristling about the required capitial reserves that are being placed on them claiming that they can't be profitable that way. They don't want anyone but them setting debt/ asset ratios and they don't want anyone telling them what constitutes legitimate asset value. If they mark strictly to market they are basically bankrupt on the strength of their asset value. they are saying, in essence, " we can't make money in the absence of moral hazard. We have to be able to get a leg up from the taxpayer if things go sideways and without that implicit guarantee we can't make enough money."
All this blanket anti-government talk is just so much faith based economics. It would all work great if certain impossible preconditions were in place, but they aren't and can't be.
 
Not to fear...

whether too much regulation, not enough regulation and with all due respect, when we reach the point when interest payments alone eat approximately 20% of federal revenues, that will mean 1/5 of what you and I pay in taxes will be flushed down the crapper.

We read of wealthy libs who proclaim they would gladly pay more in taxes for more "government services". Perhaps it would help put things in perspective to note that 1/5 of what the 53% of Americans who actually pay federal income tax cough up won’t be going to "government services" at all, unless by “government services” you mean the People’s Liberation Army of China, which will be entirely funded by U.S. taxpayers by the middle of this decade.

Rest easy, my friends...
 
Your stats....

are in error. 53% of Americans do not pay taxes(there is only 58.3% of the working age population working at all) . When will we hit the 20% of budget in interest? Is this inevitable anywhere except a right wing dystopia (we are at 5.5% now). When was the last time you saw a Democratic President get a tax hike ( let me answer that Clinton) ? When was the last time 'government services' were increased dramatically(let me answer that one too, GWB)
Where in this real world is there a country of any consequence that is significantly less governed than the USA? How many are there? 2? 20? 200? How many? What country is doing best overall right now? (let me answer that too, Australia-not exactly a prime example of minimalist government).
 
Why would it accelerate...

in view of recent happenings and the seriously cheaper borrowing costs? AN awful lot can happen in a decade. Not a rhetorical question--when have we had interest payments much above 9% of budget? I don't even know how to look this up, but it would be interesting to see if it has happpened and maybe why.
 
"Why would it accelerate...?"

Hey... you're the expert... I only sleep at Holiday Inns. :wink2:

"But it’s impossible to grasp the crisis of the progressive enterprise unless one grasps the degree to which voters resent the condescension and arrogance of know-it-all progressive intellectuals and administrators. They don’t just distrust and fear the bureaucratic state because of its failure to live up to progressive ideals (thanks to the power of corporate special interests); they fear and resent upper middle class ideology. Progressives scare off many voters most precisely when they are least restrained by special interests. Many voters feel that special interests can be a healthy restraint on the idealism and will to power of the upper middle class.

The progressive ideal of administrative cadres leading the masses toward the light has its roots in a time when many Americans had an eighth grade education or less. It always had its down side, and the arrogance and tin-eared obtuseness of self assured American liberal progressives has infuriated generations of Americans and foreigners who for one reason or another have the misfortune to fall under the power of a class still in the grip of a secularized version of the Puritan ideal. But in the conditions of late nineteenth and twentieth century America, the progressive vanguard fulfilled a vital and necessary social role.​
The deep crisis of the progressive ideal today is that it is no longer clear that the American clerisy is wanted or needed in that role.

​
At bottom, that is what the populist revolt against establishments of all kinds is about. A growing section of the American population wants to think and act for itself, without the guidance of the graduates of ivy league colleges and blue chip graduate programs.

​
The fight for limited government that animates so many Americans today isn’t a reaction against the abuses and failures of government. It is a fight to break the power of a credentialed elite that believe themselves entitled by talent and hard work to a greater say in the nation’s affairs than people who scored lower on standardized tests and studied business administration in cheap colleges rather than political science in expensive ones.”
​

- Walter Russell Mead
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top