@luke - Might you be confusing "control" with "regulation"?
My feeling is that if the government does own a controlling interest in a corporation they control the corporation. If they only have a small stake or if the corporation is using borrowed money then the government does not have any control over the corporation.
If a corporation is trying to repay borrowed money to get out from being under government "control" then they should be allowed to do so. If someone says, "here's that $50 I borrowed from you last week, can I have the spare key to my car back?" and the lender replies, "Hmmm... I'm not sure if you can afford to pay me back right now. Why don't you hold on to that $50 and I'll hold on to your extra car key for a while." All the while the lender is telling you when and where you can use your car I see a problem.
What right did the government have to force out the CEO of GM? (Not a question of merit but of rights.)
51% will get the government control of the bank, but I don't think that level of control was mentioned in the article.
Control and regulation are two different things. At the moment there may be no up-to-date regulations in place to stop a repeat of the recent behavior of the banks. So if the government gave up all control we'd have no guarantee that the bank will stick to the straight and narrow. Once the new regulations are written up the government can take back the money and let the bank get on with it. It isn't ideological; it's just prudence.
Unless there is evidence of another reason I'll stick with this analysis. Anything else is just inflating the conspiracy (a conspiracy based on unnamed sources leaked via Fox news).
Goldman Sachs (GS, Fortune 500), Bank of New York/Mellon (BK, Fortune 500), Wells Fargo (WFC, Fortune 500), JP Morgan Chase (JPM, Fortune 500) and Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500) - all 'mega-banks' that the government forced to take bailout money - say they want to return taxpayer funds "as soon as practical."
But, they're well aware no one will be permitted to return funds before completion of regulatory "stress-tests" of the major banks to determine how they would withstand a severe recession.
"We want to return the TARP money as soon as possible. We feel more bullish about economic prospects broadly, but we recognize we can't repay the money without the approval of the regulators," said Goldman Sachs spokesman Lucas Van Praag.
The "stress-tests" are supposed to be finished next month. But it's likely the Treasury will not permit bankers to return taxpayer money for many more months.
One less contentious definition of the term is "the practice of a lender deceptively convincing borrowers to agree to unfair and abusive loan terms, or systematically violating those terms in ways that make it difficult for the borrower to defend against."
While diplomacy is always a fragile thing and this could lead to nothing. If in fact we do greatly improve relations with Iran that would be totally awesome. From everything I keep hearing from the world press, the younger generation want to be part of the world and not isolated. If we can start to deal with Iran in more friendly terms without them stabbing us in the back, It will mark a huge change in U.S. foreign policy.
That and freaking lifting the embargo on Cuba.... I mean really...
That and freaking lifting the embargo on Cuba.... I mean really...
QFT.
How do you think the talks will go? Ahmadinejad is notorious for he flare for the dramatic. While I want a peaceful and beneficial outcome, I keep picturing this:
My senator rules! Arlen Spector just switched to being a Democrat...
So the political party label your Senator chooses to use somehow makes you think they rule? Shouldn't your opinion of them be based on how they perform and not what political party they belong to?
My senator rules! Arlen Spector just switched to being a Democrat...
So the political party label your Senator chooses to use somehow makes you think they rule?
Let's think about this . . . should the political party label of your Senator matter? Well, when that label means holding the 60 vote majority needed to break a filibuster, I'd say it matters pretty deeply. Now that, barring some sort of supernatural intervention, Al Franken will be the next Senator from Minnesota; Specter's switch gives the Democrats that 60 vote majority. It really makes the Democratic victory of 2008 complete.
It's also an indication of how deeply troubled the Republican party is right now. Pretty soon, the only people calling themselves "Republican" will be the book-burning teabaggers and anti-evolution luddites.
My senator rules! Arlen Spector just switched to being a Democrat...
So the political party label your Senator chooses to use somehow makes you think they rule? Shouldn't your opinion of them be based on how they perform and not what political party they belong to?
Actually Steve,
I voted for Spector in 2004 (the only republican I voted for) was going to sit out the 2010 campaign (because as a democratic cannidate it's looked down upon to support a republican) but I was going to vote for Spector then as well.
He is just living up to the reasons I voted for him (he has always had good judgement and bucked the party line) (well except for that JFK stuff) in the first place. The republican party is doing everything possible to destroy itself and kick all the moderates out. I'm glad Spector realized that he was no longer jiving with the party.
My senator rules! Arlen Spector just switched to being a Democrat...
So the political party label your Senator chooses to use somehow makes you think they rule? Shouldn't your opinion of them be based on how they perform and not what political party they belong to?
Actually Steve,
I voted for Spector in 2004 (the only republican I voted for) was going to sit out the 2010 campaign (because as a democratic cannidate it's looked down upon to support a republican) but I was going to vote for Spector then as well.
He is just living up to the reasons I voted for him (he has always had good judgement and bucked the party line) (well except for that JFK stuff) in the first place. The republican party is doing everything possible to destroy itself and kick all the moderates out. I'm glad Spector realized that he was no longer jiving with the party.
Thank you for clarifying your support. I now believe in you again
Let's think about this . . . should the political party label of your Senator matter? Well, when that label means holding the 60 vote majority needed to break a filibuster, I'd say it matters pretty deeply.
So you support parties that vote in lock-step with their leadership? No room for disagreements or alternate points of view?
So you support parties that vote in lock-step with their leadership? No room for disagreements or alternate points of view?
To an extent yes. The reason is that many decisions made by Senators and Congressman are made in strict line with party as enforced by the majority/minority whips. There is a lot of funding available for officials but only if they follow party lines. Sure there are a few dissenters, but I think they are the exceptions that prove the rule.
I'm not saying this is a good solution, but rather just the way the system works.
The reason is that many decisions made by Senators and Congressman are made in strict line with party as enforced by the majority/minority whips. There is a lot of funding available for officials but only if they follow party lines. Sure there are a few dissenters, but I think they are the exceptions that prove the rule.
I'm not saying this is a good solution, but rather just the way the system works.
As in most non-musical areas, Andrew is absolutely correct. Politicians can pretty much be trusted to vote along with their parties. Whips enforce the party line. This is the way things have been for many, many years. If anything, the republicans are far, far less likely to buck their party line than democrats. A very good example is the hard party line taken by republicans against the stimulus package.
There is no way that Specter's defection can be spun as a bad thing, except by disaffected republicans. The attempt to spin it as a bad thing because we should want politicians who are somehow "mavericks" is massive fail. The failure to understand that Whips enforce the party line is even more massive fail.
There is no way that Specter's defection can be spun as a bad thing, except by disaffected republicans. The attempt to spin it as a bad thing because we should want politicians who are somehow "mavericks" is massive fail. The failure to understand that Whips enforce the party line is even more massive fail.
Putting forth an argument that no one in this forum is making and then countering it counts as a 'strawman' argument, right?
Thank you for clarifying your support. I now believe in you again
Thank the heavens! Now he will be able to sleep at night!
There is no way that Specter's defection can be spun as a bad thing, except by disaffected republicans.The attempt to spin it as a bad thing because we should want politicians who are somehow "mavericks" is massive fail. The failure to understand that Whips enforce the party line is even more massive fail.
Putting forth an argument that no one in this forum is making and then countering it counts as a 'strawman' argument, right?
Yeah, because commenting on the relatively recent love of the "maverick" term throughout U.S. politics has no place whatsoever in a political thread. How dare he not address any ideas that aren't already put forth within the thread. Steve, not everything is about making a direct argument to another forum member.
I can see that they want to protect the profitability of large corporations that support their constituency, but I have to completely disagree with the Congressional Democratic response.
The first article illustrates a point I made before about how both parties are becoming far too partisan and extreme, pushing out those who don't follow in lock-step while the second is just comedic gold.
This has some accurate points. It's kind of sick how much the press is focusing on trivial details of everyday life rather than reporting on things that are actually...you know...newsworthy. John Stewart has been calling them out on that for awhile. I don't see it changing anytime soon. I also stopped watching Obama's weekly addresses...he basically said the same thing in every one of them, possibly mentioning whatever hot news crisis had been talked up that week without actually saying anything meaningful about it. "Hang in there and be strong. We're America and we'll get through this stronger and better than before, but we need to pull together to do it!" OK cool...but do we really need to hear the same address every week? If there's nothing new to say, just let it be, man.
I disagree with some of the assertions that Obama doesn't know what he's doing because he's going too fast, but I agree that it's difficult to get a good idea of what's going on if you're trying to follow it through the press.
I disagree with the letter-writer's characterization of liberals. It's the exact same problem we have with people characterizing all Republicans as conservative, Bible-thumping xenophobes. By the way, I'm pretty sure from the text of the letter that it's written by a woman. She seems to have been under the illusion that everything she believed was THE way, rather than A way. Not everyone believes there is One True Way that all must follow.
She's completely naive if she thought that party affiliation is what made a person good or bad. It's dumb to say something dark has GROWN in the Democratic party. It wasn't some bastion of purity against the evil of the Republican party. Never was and never will be...it is simply a collection of people with different views (or political motivations) than the Republicans. It is made up of people...fallible, sometimes asinine people. Sure, there may be statistics saying that highly educated people tend toward Democrat and less-educated people tend toward Republican. That doesn't say anything about the behavior and personalities of those individual people, just the general principles and desires. Democrats can be assholes too.
That woman had a few examples of intolerant assholes. They've been around for ages. These ones happened to be Democrats, but so what? She needs a reality check if she thinks it's news.
I disagree with the letter-writer's characterization of liberals. It's the exact same problem we have with people characterizing all Republicans as conservative, Bible-thumping xenophobes.
Yeah man, have to agree with Nuri. The article is undebatable since it's 99% anecdote. "Someone's" car was broken into and "someone's" window was smashed. And "someone" yelled "Kill [Obama]!" at a McCain rally.
I disagree with many ideological points in the second article (you know dam'n well the legislation attacking tax-shelters has nothing to do with Coke in Japan) but overall I'll agree with the sentiment: the press has to stop walking around with their noses in the Obama's assholes and get some reporting done.
The current tax-deferral system is a clumsy attempt to deal with the fact that most other countries don't tax their companies' overseas profits. A German firm doing business in Ireland, say, pays no German income tax on its Irish profits, but it does pay Ireland's corporate income tax at its 12.5% rate. The U.S. company competing with that German business in Ireland, by contrast, pays Ireland the same 12.5% on its profits -- and it then pays Uncle Sam up to 35%, minus a credit for what it paid the Irish
I understand the academic argument behind Obama's proposal but I don't think it passes the reality test. I believe it will lead to more companies moving their HQ out of the USA rather than companies moving jobs and production back to the USA.
I understand the academic argument behind Obama's proposal but I don't think it passes the reality test. I believe it will lead to more companies moving their HQ out of the USA rather than companies moving jobs and production back to the USA.
I guess it's kind of wait-and-see time. There are other things to consider outside the US. There are other differences besides tax rates...healthcare, time off, costs of moving, etc. It may actually be cheaper to pay the extra tax or move jobs to the US rather than moving overseas. Then again, it may not be.
When we passed a law saying that car companies would have to transition to making only cars that ran on unleaded gas, they all bitched and moaned that it wasn't possible. And yet, they stayed in the US, they did it, and the industry survived. Many times things people say are infeasible are not...you just need enough of a push to get them to actually try.
When we passed a law saying that car companies would have to transition to making only cars that ran on unleaded gas, they all bitched and moaned that it wasn't possible. And yet, they stayed in the US, they did it, and the industry survived. Many times things people say are infeasible are not...you just need enough of a push to get them to actually try.
There is a big difference between saying ALL companies must do THIS and saying only SOME companies must do THIS.
When unleaded gas was mandated the rule did not only apply to American companies, it applied to all companies who wanted to sell cars in the US that run on gasoline.
Srsly. That article could be summed up as "I was a dick, and so were all the people I hung out with. My bad".
Or better yet, "I was a dick, so I'm going to be a dickish while telling you I was a dick so that you won't think I'm a dick any longer. My bad, but it obviously was me, and not the party, seeing as I'm still a dick."
President Barack Obama, calling current deficit spending “unsustainable,” warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the U.S. continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries.
President Barack Obama, calling current deficit spending “unsustainable,” warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the U.S. continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries.
What's wrong? This seems to check out with my admittedly limited knowledge of macroeconomics. The quantity of supply of loanable funds is falling due to increased borrowing by the US government, so interest rates have to rise. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but it would appear that the President is correct.
"WTF" is not a valid criticism. Are you saying the President is incorrect, or suggesting that he is contradicting himself?
Comments
@luke - Might you be confusing "control" with "regulation"?
My feeling is that if the government does own a controlling interest in a corporation they control the corporation. If they only have a small stake or if the corporation is using borrowed money then the government does not have any control over the corporation.
If a corporation is trying to repay borrowed money to get out from being under government "control" then they should be allowed to do so. If someone says, "here's that $50 I borrowed from you last week, can I have the spare key to my car back?" and the lender replies, "Hmmm... I'm not sure if you can afford to pay me back right now. Why don't you hold on to that $50 and I'll hold on to your extra car key for a while." All the while the lender is telling you when and where you can use your car I see a problem.
What right did the government have to force out the CEO of GM? (Not a question of merit but of rights.)
Control and regulation are two different things. At the moment there may be no up-to-date regulations in place to stop a repeat of the recent behavior of the banks. So if the government gave up all control we'd have no guarantee that the bank will stick to the straight and narrow. Once the new regulations are written up the government can take back the money and let the bank get on with it. It isn't ideological; it's just prudence.
Unless there is evidence of another reason I'll stick with this analysis. Anything else is just inflating the conspiracy (a conspiracy based on unnamed sources leaked via Fox news).
TARP is looking more and morel like Predatory lending.
While diplomacy is always a fragile thing and this could lead to nothing. If in fact we do greatly improve relations with Iran that would be totally awesome. From everything I keep hearing from the world press, the younger generation want to be part of the world and not isolated. If we can start to deal with Iran in more friendly terms without them stabbing us in the back, It will mark a huge change in U.S. foreign policy.
That and freaking lifting the embargo on Cuba.... I mean really...
How do you think the talks will go? Ahmadinejad is notorious for he flare for the dramatic. While I want a peaceful and beneficial outcome, I keep picturing this:
It's also an indication of how deeply troubled the Republican party is right now. Pretty soon, the only people calling themselves "Republican" will be the book-burning teabaggers and anti-evolution luddites.
I voted for Spector in 2004 (the only republican I voted for) was going to sit out the 2010 campaign (because as a democratic cannidate it's looked down upon to support a republican) but I was going to vote for Spector then as well.
He is just living up to the reasons I voted for him (he has always had good judgement and bucked the party line) (well except for that JFK stuff) in the first place. The republican party is doing everything possible to destroy itself and kick all the moderates out. I'm glad Spector realized that he was no longer jiving with the party.
So you support parties that vote in lock-step with their leadership? No room for disagreements or alternate points of view?
I'm not saying this is a good solution, but rather just the way the system works.
There is no way that Specter's defection can be spun as a bad thing, except by disaffected republicans. The attempt to spin it as a bad thing because we should want politicians who are somehow "mavericks" is massive fail. The failure to understand that Whips enforce the party line is even more massive fail.
BTW, Obama makes grown men faint.
Steve, not everything is about making a direct argument to another forum member.
The first article illustrates a point I made before about how both parties are becoming far too partisan and extreme, pushing out those who don't follow in lock-step while the second is just comedic gold.
I disagree with some of the assertions that Obama doesn't know what he's doing because he's going too fast, but I agree that it's difficult to get a good idea of what's going on if you're trying to follow it through the press. I disagree with the letter-writer's characterization of liberals. It's the exact same problem we have with people characterizing all Republicans as conservative, Bible-thumping xenophobes. By the way, I'm pretty sure from the text of the letter that it's written by a woman. She seems to have been under the illusion that everything she believed was THE way, rather than A way. Not everyone believes there is One True Way that all must follow.
She's completely naive if she thought that party affiliation is what made a person good or bad. It's dumb to say something dark has GROWN in the Democratic party. It wasn't some bastion of purity against the evil of the Republican party. Never was and never will be...it is simply a collection of people with different views (or political motivations) than the Republicans. It is made up of people...fallible, sometimes asinine people. Sure, there may be statistics saying that highly educated people tend toward Democrat and less-educated people tend toward Republican. That doesn't say anything about the behavior and personalities of those individual people, just the general principles and desires. Democrats can be assholes too.
That woman had a few examples of intolerant assholes. They've been around for ages. These ones happened to be Democrats, but so what? She needs a reality check if she thinks it's news.
I disagree with many ideological points in the second article (you know dam'n well the legislation attacking tax-shelters has nothing to do with Coke in Japan) but overall I'll agree with the sentiment: the press has to stop walking around with their noses in the Obama's assholes and get some reporting done.
Going After Foreign Profits.
Businesses pan tax crackdown plan
Obama's Global Tax Raid I understand the academic argument behind Obama's proposal but I don't think it passes the reality test. I believe it will lead to more companies moving their HQ out of the USA rather than companies moving jobs and production back to the USA.
When we passed a law saying that car companies would have to transition to making only cars that ran on unleaded gas, they all bitched and moaned that it wasn't possible. And yet, they stayed in the US, they did it, and the industry survived. Many times things people say are infeasible are not...you just need enough of a push to get them to actually try.
When unleaded gas was mandated the rule did not only apply to American companies, it applied to all companies who wanted to sell cars in the US that run on gasoline.
"WTF" is not a valid criticism. Are you saying the President is incorrect, or suggesting that he is contradicting himself?