If you want the financial industry regulated, you should be a heavy supporter of the Democratic party.
I think finance was better under Glass-Steagall. I would definitely support that. Also, I have a great deal of respect for Sheila Bair for trying to standup to Hank Paulson. I also have respect for Members of Congress such as Maria Cantwell who voted against TARP.
My beef is with the thinking that Members of Congress who take political contributions from businesses they are charged with regulating is okay with you. I know its legal, but seriously, wouldn't you consider it a bit of an ethics breach?
the assertion is that Robert Rubin should be put in jail.
I never asserted this. I was merely pointing out members of team blue who were working for the banks while they were supposed to be representing the interests of the public. You brushed all members of team red as being the bogeymen, I merely pointed out the hypocrisy in that statement.
Like Barney Frank, Robert Rubin, Frank Raines and Christopher Dodd?
What do any of these people have to do with writing mortgages to people without jobs and selling mortgage bonds to suckers with bullshit AAA ratings?
Show me a single connection.
The sat on the Congressional committees responsible for regulating the finance industry during the biggest credit debacle in history. All the time, taking millions in campaign contributions from the very institutions they were responsible for overseeing. Frank Raines was in charge of a government agency that was cooking the books under his watch.
So I was right wasn't I. You want people put in prison without even knowing what they should be charged with. Calling Eric Holder for what? So you can get justice for perceived crimes instead of actual crimes?
You obviously did not read the article. Justice has not even created an investigative task force as they did in the 90s S&L crisis. Its pretty obvious to most people that there was wide spread fraud going on throughout the housing bubble.
Everything else is a bunch of crap. You want a bunch of people in jail without even being able to state their crimes.
I'm not a lawyer, but as a taxpayer I would expect the government to investigate and prosecute. There were literally 1000s of people prosecuted for fraud during the 90s Savings and Loan debacle. Like I said ... Eric Holder, calling Eric Holder!
I can't comprehend how somebody can trust a government who, ostensibly was supposed to regulate the finance business, to do anything other than what the lobbyists tell them to do.
Sure you can. It's easy!!! All you have to do is know some history.
Study the financial markets before the New Deal and after the New Deal. An honest appraisal of genuine free market conditions will destroy everything you believe. What you have now is a dishonest appraisal minted by the Heritage Foundation.
Again.......everything you stand for is to make this worse, not better. The national debt, government debt, is a buffer to absorb these disasters. You're like someone who wants to take seat belts out of cars while raising the speed limit to 100 mph. I cannot comprehend it.
I can't comprehend how somebody can trust a government who, ostensibly was supposed to regulate the finance business, to do anything other than what the lobbyists tell them to do. From Robert Rubin on down, the Federal Government has done whatever Goldman Sachs has asked them to do. Meanwhile, the crooks that caused the problems in the housing run up are not prosecuted, but rather bailed out! There were plenty of regulations in place. I would have loved to seen the FDIC step in and hold Citi, GS and JPM in receivership. Instead, Hank Paulson stepped in and saved his buddies at GS. Bernanke and Geithner were complicit. In the aftermath, the FED ... the institution largely responsible for the credit crisis is given more power to regulate? Your trust in the government to administer justice is what I don't comprehend. As long as it is team blue/red/purple, then I guess corruption is ok.
YOU are PERSONALLY responsible for runaway private debt by how you vote.
Both parties support bank bailouts and FED policies that enrich the .1% on Wall Street. I'm all for going after these guys. They are the ones who belong in Guantanamo if you ask me. Mr. Holder, calling Mr. Holder...
Perspective of total credit in the USA relative to GDP:
What the fucking hell does total credit have to do with a discussion of the national debt????
Total debt is the main drag on the economy. Government debt is just a component of it. Government debt has largely been used to pick up the slack as the private sector de-leverages. Private sector de-leveraging is what caused the 2008 crisis. Since then the government has been attempting to prop up the house of cards shown above.
The main way we are impoverishing ourselves is continuing to borrow from overseas. The "demise of the dollar" is a soft-default on all that.
I understand the FED policy and why they are doing what they are doing. There are those who benefit from this policy and those who are hurt by it. The division pretty much defines the split in the country.
On the one hand you have a government that is desperate to fund itself so it can maintain its power by continuing to pony up to the political class, corporate and social welfare recipients and bankers. The political class being widely defined as anyone taking from the public trough. On the other hand you have people in the private sector who don't have a pension and have been forced into private savings plans that pay out negative real rates of return. By paying negative real rates, the FED policy is essentially stealing from savers and transferring their wealth to the banking cartel and the political class. Your political views are likely to be defined by where you fall in the spectrum of winners and losers.
As for the "soft" default it appears to be a race to the bottom with currencies as all the world's central banks seem to be devaluing together. So it might help in cases where currencies are pegged to the dollar such as China. However, it is likely that they will counter this policy with further trade restrictions.
the higher tax rates that are proposed don't amount to much when you are borrowing 47% of your annual spending.
So how do things look if we eliminate 90% of the military and slash veterans benefits?
Everyone has their own opinion on what should and should not be cut so maybe an across the board cut would be best.
One thing that is missing from the pie chart is the annual servicing cost of the national debt. It is a huge line item that rivals military spending. It was $454B+ in 2012. Bernanke brought it down to $360B in 2013 through interest rate manipulation. The big problem with this is that I doubt the FED can get interest rates much lower (and thus borrowing costs). Besides, if interest rates start to move up, the servicing costs will easily spike to $500B+. Especially with more debt being piled on each day.