Originally posted by: trooper11
Originally posted by: Craig234
So the government, because of its interests, is better positioned to play the role of referree, than the companies themselves.
(Now, if those same private interests pay and get their people elected, representing them and not the public in a failure of democracy, all bets are off.)
i dont know why you needed to correct me on that point, I never said the government shouldnt be involved in regulating things, I am talking about running things, completely different, as you covered later in your post. But you also made my point. We know that politicians get corrupted by money and power all the time, so yes, thats why I am deeply concerned when the government want to take on a bigger role somewhere.
We're not entirely disagreeing. As for corruption, you deal with it for what it is, you don't cripple essential fucntions over it.
Some doctors have been crorrupted. We don't outlaw doctors.
Some police have been corrupted. We don't get rid of the police.
There's reaction, and overreaction. The government has an essential role. You appear to me to be a victim of the broad 'government always sucks'' propagand that leads you to overly oppose governemnt even where it's needed or helpful, not simply to try to make sure it works right.
The government 'running things' is a controversial area, because almost no one wants the government broadly replacing the private system, creating the sort of tyrannical, inefficient economies we see in communist nations - but the controversy is about the fact that limited versions of that are often good ideas, but people get paranoid and slide down sllippery slopes and fear smaller measures.
but isnt that the point? we should be a little paranoid and try to keep the government in check. you seem to want to paint the government as impervious to corruption or overreaching in its control. I just believe that the government should be held to a tight standard becuase they do control so much that is critical to our lives and our representatives dont often follow the ideals/morals we woudl like them to follow.
I'm all for 'a tight standard'. I'm not for paranoia that knee-jerk opposes the governemnt doing pretty much anything beyond the liberatrians' simplistic approved list.
When a bank fails and the FDIC takes over, it works pretty well at protecting the customers, and selling off the bank.
*If* it might make sense for the government to temporarily run some failed institutions, the problem is the debate is filled with paranoia and ideology, so that however much sense it might make, people in some cases oppose it as if it were putting Fidel Castro in as emperor of the nation.
again this should definitely be a concern for everyone becuase of the term 'temporarily'. take today's situation. how long will the government need to run AIG or say an automaker, before turning it back over to the private sector? To me, supporting the government in 'temporary' takeovers is opening the door for long term control. It is true that it doesnt mean that absolutely will happen, but you cant deny that its possible. All it takes is the right conditions for such things to become permanent.[/quote]
Again I hear paranoia. It takes as long as it takes, I'd guess a year or maybe two. The FDIC has for a long time temporarily taken over failed banks.
You are espousing the prevention of the government taking possibly essential action for the economy in the name of fearing 'what if' wild speculation.
Concern? Sure. But do't let concern turn into uninformed "the government wants to eat our children" type paranoia from Glenn Beck. Turn the paranoia down.
I want to hear other options, but no one wants to come up with any. We were rushed into TARP, rushed into all of these things under the premis that we needed immediate action. I would have prefered smarter action, i would have perfered they took time to hash out other ideas, but no, that wasnt an option.
We agree.
Consider how much good Freggie and Fannie did for decades compared to before, the problem they solved, their limit role in the current crisis.
Im not denying that they didnt do anything good, but they most certainly did wrong and the government cant avoid some of the blame
Yes, the government isn't perfect. If you want to discuss that blame, fine, but if you want to talk about Fannie and Freddie as the main cause of the economic meltdown or as examples of how the government is trying to take our nation to communism and they have to be disbanded, sorry, you are off in right-wing paranoia land.
I sure disagree with that. There have been zero convictions for the current economic crisis, but we have elections - you might have notices a change in January.
beyond your snide remark about elections, I wasnt referring to the current crisis in particular. but after rethinking that, your right, I would say the private sector and the government could easily get away with something if they want to, most of the time without any of us noticing.
i dont see how its unreasonable to be suspisious of the government every bit as much as someone in the private sector. only difference right now is that light is being shined very bightly on the private sector.
Sorry for it sounding snide, to make the point about elections.
It might surprise you to know that Democrats are generally big fans of oversight. Look at the 'oversight Czar' in Congress, Henry Waxman, he's a master. There are countless examples of where I can show you government misbehavior and Democrats in Congress investigating and exposing it. We're all for caution, for careful regulation, for oversight.
That might be a surprise to people who hear the right-wing portrayal of Democrats.
As for the private sector, is any explanation of the need for oversight in the current crisis needed, following how the lack of constaints and oversight caused all these problems?
Unfortunately, the monied interests were able to have propagandists come up with slick ad campaigns about how oversight 'put our wealth produers on a leash' and threatened to cripple our financial industry's ability to generate wealth for the nation, and many people, hearing thsee messages from people like right-wing media figures, bought in.
Facebook
Twitter