patrick.net

The thing about not having much money is you have to take much more responsibility for your life. You can’t pay people to watch your kids or clean your house or fix your meals. You can’t necessarily afford a car or a washing machine or a home in a good school district. That’s what money buys you: goods and services that make your life easier, that give you time and space to focus on what you want to focus on.

Politicofact says

The thing about not having much money is you have to take much more responsibility for your life.

True, but both of your most recent comments are simply copied from Ezra Klein's article and pasted without quotation marks and without attribution.

Politicofact says

here is a brief explanation why the FDIC was formed.

Your source is so unbiased PoliticoCommie.

Dan8267 says

Vicente says

The real problem with his "47%" comments was it got caught on tape.

Everything is on video today, yet politicians still think they say one thing to one group and the exact oppose to another group, and no one will be the wiser. They have yet to grasp the concept of an information age.

Exactly. Obama thought he can cut a better deal to Russians if they can help him re-elected. The real problem is that he got caught by audio.

curious2 says

But, I think there is a lot to be said for limited FDIC protection of savings

I kinda go back on forth on this point. On the one hand, insurance breeds more confidence in the system which reduces the chances of a bank run. But, on the other hand, can you really trust the government to not be captured by monied interests? Maybe the requirement of private deposit insurance along with strict regulatory audits and compliance would work better. But what I have seen over the past years with government regulatory agencies doing anything constructive has made me a complete cynic. Lets face it, it was not a lack of regulation that caused the financial crisis. It was a lack of regulatory enforcement. All of the regulators were captured by industry. How can anyone guarantee it isn't and/or won't happen again?

JohnLaw says

I think we need to remove the moral hazard implicit in Federal deposit and loan guarantees.

More Libertopian nonsense. There's always the belief that removing government guarantees, regulation etc. will bring us "the miracle of the free market".

As a former Libertarian, I now recognize that periods of history with "sound money" and no central banks and no FDIC *STILL* had financial crises. And what happened during these crashes? Bankers STILL ran off with all the money, and the little guy ended up with ZIP ZILCH NADA BUPKUS.

The first Great Depression is one example among many. No, not the one in 1929, the one before that 1873-1879 which was later redubbed as the "Long Depression".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1873

The notion we can solve all our problems by eliminating protections for depositors should be laughed right out of the room on it's face. It's not moral hazard. Most people who toss this term around don't even understand it's origins. It's not "moral hazard" to insure people's deposits, they are NOT TAKING RISKS with their money when they put it in the bank. That the BANKERS are taking risks with it, is something else entirely.

There was an easy solution to banker gambling. Not allowing giant megabanks that crossed up retail, investment, and insurance. Not allowing banks to be owned across different states. When I grew up, all banks were local and risks were on the balance sheet of that bank not sliced and diced into securities. You want to fix it? Push for Glass Steagall 2.0. The original act brought stability from 1933 to 1999.

JohnLaw says

But, on the other hand, can you really trust the government to not be captured by monied interests?

That is always a risk, and a powerful cautionary argument against big government. Unfortunately in recent decades we have seen selective deregulation and a heavy emphasis on promoting risk, especially in the form of debt.

robertoaribas says

failure to insure banks and unwind those that were insolvent in a practical manner is one of the HUGE errors that made the "great depression" GREAT, instead of merely a depression.

And we have a Fed chair who draws the wrong lessons from history, and he got the job because he draws those lessons. He is an intelligent guy, but paradoxically he is also a "useful idiot," in the sense that he draws the lessons that serve the FIRE industry, so he is comfortable working for the biggest banks and doing their bidding.

On the subject of debt, we have neither deregulation nor sound regulation. We have a government that promotes debt, while failing to regulate adequately the debt industry, because it has been captured by them. In the 99 years since the Fed was founded to promote full employment and a stable currency, unemployment has doubled and the currency has lost more than 95% of its value.

In the 78 years since the FDIC was founded, no saver has ever lost a penny of insured deposits due to bank failure. Bank runs, which used to ruin banks by turning rumors of insolvency into a self-fulfilling prophecy, no longer happen in this country. It took a while for people to gain confidence in the FDIC system, but it works very well.

In some areas, government works. In other areas, it doesn't.

robertoaribas says

The top 10% of earners make 95% of the money, so paying 71% of the taxes is actually grossly underpaying...

Actually the top 10% earn about 50% of all income.

Vicente says

You want to fix it? Push for Glass Steagall 2.0. The original act brought stability from 1933 to 1999.

I'm in agreement on this point. As long as the government back-stops deposits then banking activities on deposits that are insured need to be separated.

Regardless of what the fixes are, deleveraging is going to cause a severe amount of pain. I doubt that we are even in the 3rd inning of this ball game. My main concern is that free market capitalism is being blamed for it. There is no way that the system could have become this over-leveraged without government loan guarantees and a central bank bent on pushing debt to extreme levels.

FlashGordon says

Good perspective.

NO here is the good perspective, because as much as some of you don't want it to get out because it exposes the LibDem game, he isn't wrong.

http://www.MU9V6eOFO38&feature=watch-vrec

Politicofact says

The FDIC was created in 1933 in response to the thousands of bank failures that occurred in the 1920s and early 1930s. As the FDIC celebrates its 75th anniversary, we present a historical perspective on the rich history of protecting consumers.

How lovely a feel good statement. One problem? THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN TESTED TO PAY OUT. Have they really the funds available to cover a major crash? THAT is the part most do not examine.

Dan8267 says

The real indisputable truth is that the vast majority of the top 0.1% are parasites who have never contributed anything to the real GDP and do not produce any wealth. If anything, they are massive wealth destroyers and they are rich only because they redistribute wealth from the working class wealth producers to themselves.

That isn't real honestly made wealth, real old money, that is just greed. People who unable to create and build something themselves they just know how to steal and rob others and pocket as much as possible while giving the illusion they are doing something else.

History has seen this shite before.

JohnLaw says

To say that you have a right to healthcare services is ridiculous.

No more ridiculous than saying you have a right to call the cops if you don't pay income taxes.

Imagine this scenario of a woman and her children:

"Help, three guys are climbing into my house!"
"Did you pay income tax?"
"Not last year, I lost my job as a secretary of a tire company six months ago and this year I only work 20 hours a week at Hillbilly's buffet washing dishes for $7.00. Because of my kids I qualify for some food stamps, too."
"Fuck You Then. Literally! Bwahahahaha! Stupid parasite! What do you think, you can just freeload off Police Services? And by the way, bitch, when you get impregnated by these rapists, don't come crying to us, we ain't givin' away healthcare. And, abortion is a sin against Jesus!"

Vicente says

The real problem with his "47%" comments was it got caught on tape.

I think they, the politicians, are all like that. Mitt was just the one who was caught lying. I bet he doesn't even see it as an ethical problem, only as a marketing problem that he wants to address through deceptive advertising.

Of the 47%, half are on Social Security. The vast majority of those had 15% taken out of their paychecks for SS and MC for 4 decades, so they prepaid all their benefits.

Another third make too little money to pay income taxes.

Only about 1/8th of 'em have no job and live off the government. And some of those are disabled.

How much subsidies do the top 1% get? Mortgage Interest deductions, subsidies to the companies they control, etc. Shit some multi-billion dollar businesses would be untenable without subsidies, like large scale commodity agriculture.