Crisis Wasted: Serious Wall Street Reform Unlikely, With or Without Dodd

[StageLeft]

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticke...BAC,MS,WFC&sec=topStories&pos=9&asset=&ccode=

As is no surprise, no big banking reform has taken place in the last 18 months despite the economy being hacked out at the knees.

And now, in what I would say is in fact a hilarious piece of circumstances, the likely replacement for senate banking chairman is a senator from South Dakota, where Citigroup is head-quartered to get around usury laws.

A screenplay writer really could not make this up.

 

[Craig234]

The only practical solution to change this: more progressives elected.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The only practical solution to change this: more progressives elected.

And until there is enough progressives that meet you criteria?

 

[Craig234]

And until there is enough progressives that meet you criteria?

Until then, it's not easy to see how real Wall Street reform will get passed. The trends of Wall Street dominaqnce, extraction of wealth fro the rest of the rest of country, concentration of wealth continue.

There's always the chance of some big surprise politically, bringing about change some other way, but what are the odds?

I'm wondering if there isn't some chance of the Republicans trying a populist shift. I think Frank Rich wrote about this recentlyu, that Republicans may see a politcal opporunity in grabbing populist revolt.

But if they do, what will they do with it? Will it have any legitimacy, or will it just be another ticket to power on a campaign of deception? ("Compassionate conservative", ad nauseum).

 

[StageLeft]

There's always the chance of some big surprise politically, bringing about change some other way, but what are the odds?

Magic 8 ball says odds are 0%.

But if they do, what will they do with it?

They will fvck their constituents just like the democrats are doing. This is sacrosanct.

I'd say Bush's greatest failure, among his many notable ones, was the Iraq war. So far my money on Obama's greatest, assuming nothing of huge significance comes along in the next three years, could be not changing economic regulation in an effort to ward off some of the underlying causes of the greatest recession of all our lives. That assumes health care doesn't become a cluster, of course. But health care is debatable, this is not or should not be. Nobody in the world of right mind can say something should not be done about the banking industry in the United States. It dearly needs attention.

 

[Specop 007]

The only practical solution to change this: more progressives elected.

Thats a new idea!! I've never heard of that!

 

[MotF Bane]

The Democrats are as corrupt as the Republicans.

 

[Jaskalas]

The only practical solution to change this: more progressives elected.

I find that big government types like easy money. Why would they deny it to the banks?

 

[MotF Bane]

Progressives are no good either.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Magic 8 ball says odds are 0%.
They will fvck their constituents just like the democrats are doing. This is sacrosanct.

I'd say Bush's greatest failure, among his many notable ones, was the Iraq war. So far my money on Obama's greatest, assuming nothing of huge significance comes along in the next three years, could be not changing economic regulation in an effort to ward off some of the underlying causes of the greatest recession of all our lives. That assumes health care doesn't become a cluster, of course. But health care is debatable, this is not or should not be. Nobody in the world of right mind can say something should not be done about the banking industry in the United States. It dearly needs attention.

I'd say the economy was his biggest failure; whether he started it or not he sat by for eight years while such a huge bubble was allowed to form, and it's probably going to have farther reaching affects than the Iraq war will.

 

[Craig234]

Thats a new idea!! I've never heard of that!

I have decided repitition is quite justified to get the point across. You will see it many times to come. Think of it like advocating democracy before the Revolutionary war. You confirmed it's working, thanks.

 

[Craig234]

I find that big government types like easy money. Why would they deny it to the banks?

I'm sorry to say this harshly, but it's because you are a political illeterate who equates 'progressives' and 'big government types [who] like easy money'.

I could say what progressive ACTUALLY stand for and why and how they are ACTUALLY for strong finance industry regulation for the good of the country, but am I wasting my time to say this to you?

 

[ayabe]

We need term limits, a third party(or fourth or fifth), and all lobbyists should be sent to the Sleepshop.

This is why every single piece of legislation coming out of Congress is an epic piece of shit, there are 400 constituencies(representing .00000000015% of the taxpayers) to please before they get to the 401st - Joe the Voter.

I've sent Fox my pitch for a Running Man lobbyist hunt that could run on Sundays during the NFL offseason, they haven't called yet - but I haven't lost hope.

 

[Craig234]

I'd say the economy was his biggest failure; whether he started it or not he sat by for eight years while such a huge bubble was allowed to form, and it's probably going to have farther reaching affects than the Iraq war will.

Would you believe that I think it's more complicated and i actually give Busb *some* slack?

The fact is, our whole economy is based on a lot of trust more than solid things. It thrives on that trust, does much better with it, and where to draw the line when it crosses to bubble isn't always clear.

That's just always the case.

So it's not a black and white issue of 'bubble is bad', it's more like riding a wave - the economy is a balloon of hot air you don't want much or too little air in but you aren't sure how much is right.

When the tech bubble took off, how much was too much? How much was wrong, and how much was solid growth based on 'new technology'? For years it was hotly - as in hot air - debated. Who knew?

There are good basics to have in place to prevent excesses, but it's just not that clear what's a good limit and an excessive limit sometimes.

Was there *really* a consensus abtou what to do about the housing bubble before the crash, was there really any popular consensus about what to do about it?

What happens to politicians who cool off an economy against the will of an angrey public claiming it's to prevent a problem? Today they might get away with it after the crash. Then? Not as much.

 

[Craig234]

We need term limits, a third party(or fourth or fifth), and all lobbyists should be sent to the Sleepshop.

This is why every single piece of legislation coming out of Congress is an epic piece of shit, there are 400 constituencies(representing .00000000015% of the taxpayers) to please before they get to the 401st - Joe the Voter.

I've sent Fox my pitch for a Running Man lobbyist hunt that could run on Sundays during the NFL offseason, they haven't called yet - but I haven't lost hope.

1. Cut and paste why term limits are a TERRIBLE idea that hurts democracy and hands the power of the government over the powers that be who select indebted, faceless placeholders to be the nominees.

If you don't like it, vote them out.

Oh, wait.

2, Cut and paste: The need for more parties has nothing to do with more parties. It has to with election form of our winner take all system. We need ranked voting to make voting for third parties viable.

3. It's not the lobbyists, who are doing the job the system wrongly incents. We need to fix the system on how it allows the money to dominate the system. Change the rules, fix the lobbyists.

But 'Joe the voter' yawns at the topic and doesn't do anything to push it.

 

[Jaskalas]

I'm sorry to say this harshly, but it's because you are a political illeterate who equates 'progressives' and 'big government types [who] like easy money'.

I could say what progressive ACTUALLY stand for and why and how they are ACTUALLY for strong finance industry regulation for the good of the country, but am I wasting my time to say this to you?

You can tell me that by progressive you do not mean Democrat, but I assure you that I won't believe it. Never have you affirmed to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

Example, how are you doing with Freddie and Fannie? Still doling out the cash I see. Easy money.

 

[Genx87]

Thats a new idea!! I've never heard of that!

Craig still lives in some yellow sky world where his favorites do the right thing. He went from democrats to progressive democrats as his team. Once the progressives fuck him over he will be looking for a new team to hang his hat on.

 

[ayabe]

1. Cut and paste why term limits are a TERRIBLE idea that hurts democracy and hands the power of the government over the powers that be who select indebted, faceless placeholders to be the nominees.

If you don't like it, vote them out.

Oh, wait.

2, Cut and paste: The need for more parties has nothing to do with more parties. It has to with election form of our winner take all system. We need ranked voting to make voting for third parties viable.

3. It's not the lobbyists, who are doing the job the system wrongly incents. We need to fix the system on how it allows the money to dominate the system. Change the rules, fix the lobbyists.

But 'Joe the voter' yawns at the topic and doesn't do anything to push it.

1. Term limits work great for the POTUS and needs to be implemented as a check on human nature. Some of these folks have been in their seats for more than 30 years, it's impossible to not become part of the problem when you are there for that period of time, no matter how virtuous you may be at the onset, the system will wear you down.

2. Our system hasn't evolved with the times and isn't set up to confront the issues we're now facing - parliamentary system FTW.

3. They go hand in hand, you cannot have one without the other - it's legalized bribery. Everyday we edge closer to banana republic status - like in the Philippines - everything in their government revolves around bribes, they're called "facilitating payments" by the lawyers.

 

[StageLeft]

I'd say the economy was his biggest failure; whether he started it or not he sat by for eight years while such a huge bubble was allowed to form, and it's probably going to have farther reaching affects than the Iraq war will.

The great thing is we're both admiring a hot woman and despite you preferring her butt and me her bosom we're both in general agreement. It's nice from any angle, just as Bush is bad from any angle. Choosing the favorite body part is personal and too subjective to expect total agreement.

 

[Craig234]

Craig still lives in some yellow sky world where his favorites do the right thing. He went from democrats to progressive democrats as his team. Once the progressives fuck him over he will be looking for a new team to hang his hat on.

Genx is an ignorant person, who is not honest - I have have made the case for years and still do for the Democratic Party agenda over the Republican party agenda, and for progressive Demos against corporatists. I predicted risk that when the Democrats returned to power, they'd be very much at risk for increased pressure to corrupt to the corporatist side, and that's happened, and I've pointed it out.

He doesn't understanything anythig about the progressives, but he'll attack them at length out of his ignorance. He can't bothered to get any information. Don't look for any substance in his comments.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So Craig, it wasn't corporate people who ran NY state into the ground. It was a Progressive agenda. Corporations and the public have been taxed to death for social programs, and there's no reform. The programs are apparently too important to modify or cut back.

When we have people paying 8k in property taxes on 200k worth of home how do you justify that? When people are leaving (and taking businesses with them) they are the ones who can afford to do so. High income taxes, fees, real estate taxes, sales taxes. It's not enough to feed the beast.

They milked the cow dry.

Now what guarantee do I have that the Progressives won't do the same thing on a national basis?

There's always one more program we need regardless of affordability.

 

[Craig234]

1. Term limits work great for the POTUS and needs to be implemented as a check on human nature. Some of these folks have been in their seats for more than 30 years, it's impossible to not become part of the problem when you are there for that period of time, no matter how virtuous you may be at the onset, the system will wear you down.

I'm in agreement for the Presidency. It's a whole different type of office, with a dominant role over the country that creates a different set of tradeoffs, and a different election process.

Henry Waxman has been in Congress for decades. He's partof the solution, not part of the problem and his experience is *essential* to his effectively performng oversight of the government. Newbies can't.

2. Our system hasn't evolved with the times and isn't set up to confront the issues we're now facing - parliamentary system FTW.

I don't have much opinion on that, but ranked voting would provide third party viability, and other changes are available, that might be a less major change to the system.

3. They go hand in hand, you cannot have one without the other - it's legalized bribery. Everyday we edge closer to banana republic status - like in the Philippines - everything in their government revolves around bribes, they're called "facilitating payments" by the lawyers.

Your argument is like legalizing hand grenades and saying the solution to the explosions is to kill the hand grenade dealers.

The issue is the set of rules for money in politics, period. When they allow it, you get lobbyists. Without it, you pretty much don't.

Is the first post I ever find use of the phrase hate the game, not the playa?

 

[ayabe]

Too much of anything is bad, progressives included.

Ask CA, they're 'progressing' themselves into oblivion.

 

[MotF Bane]

Now what guarantee do I have that the Progressives won't do the same thing on a national basis?

I think I can make you a guarantee. Given a chance, they will do exactly the same thing on the national scale. They've done it in multiple states, there's no reason for them to stop at the federal level, and the federal level even allows, hell, condones deficit spending.

 

[Craig234]

So Craig, it wasn't corporate people who ran NY state into the ground. It was a Progressive agenda. Corporations and the public have been taxed to death for social programs, and there's no reform. The programs are apparently too important to modify or cut back.

When we have people paying 8k in property taxes on 200k worth of home how do you justify that? When people are leaving (and taking businesses with them) they are the ones who can afford to do so. High income taxes, fees, real estate taxes, sales taxes. It's not enough to feed the beast.

They milked the cow dry.

Now what guarantee do I have that the Progressives won't do the same thing on a national basis?

There's always one more program we need regardless of affordability.

For what it's worth, from my limited familiarity with New York politics, as I think I've said, I sympathize, and we might well be able to find problems there. It's a somewhat unique environment and culture.

Liberalism can go and has gone bad. Ask Bill Moyers, at the heart of the Great Society, he'll tell you they made some big mistakes along with the good they did.

It's a larger question to get into, to look at all the specifics of New York, goodf and bad, progressive or not.

But I don't see things that generalize to the progressive movement elsewhere, and the claims I've made do not deny the risk for abuses, problems, missteps - they are accurate for what I've said.

Such as that progressives are the one major faction we can reliably look to to do major finance industry reform.

Now, maybe they'd make a mistake in that reform. But they'd do it.

It reminds me of FDR's approach in the new deal. He put togehter progressives and said come up with things to do. Some will work we'll keep, and some won't we'll get rid of. A lot of good came out of it.

What political model is going to come out of New York looking pristine and infallible?

I'm happy to look at how to prevent their own problems - while they get the problems fixed. What we're facing is big corruption from the concentrated wealth and power, and only one major faction against it.

Look at the *positions* at the national level of the progressives the last few decades - they've been right on issue after issue. What do you see there that resembles New York's problems?