Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditTreasury Secretary Henry Paulson draft proposal for the bailout of struggling financial-services firms sought to make himself the most powerful unelected official in American history through his proposal to take charge of vast sectors of the U.S. economy -- setting policy, buying and selling assets, determining whether financial institutions thrive or collapse -- with no oversight.
Under Paulson's draft plan, Congress and the courts would have been barred from reviewing or challenging his moves to stabilize financial markets -- effectively making him the nation's economic czar.
That's not just a dangerous power grab for economic and politic reasons. It's unconstitutional.
Paulson's power grab was specifically spelled out by the treasury secretary in Section 8 of his proposal, which read: "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."
Senate Banking Committee Chris Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat who sought his party's nomination for president this year but has arguably emerged as a more influential player in his role as the congressional point-man on a crisis that is bigger than an election, pushed back on Monday.
Dodd offered a plan to give Paulson extraordinary -- and, frankly, excessive -- powers. But the senator also moved to place tighter time limits on the period in which the treasury secretary would be able to exercise those powers, to establish an special inspector general to monitor the program and to set up an emergency board with two congressional appointees to provide oversight.
Ultimately, Dodd and his compatriots should be able to restrain Paulson's power grab.
But they must be as specific in their constrain of Paulson as the treasury secretary was in his overreach.
Section 8 of the Paulson proposal must be stripped in its entirety.
There can be no vagueness, no gray area.
Otherwise, the treasury secretary would become a more powerful -- and unaccountable -- figure even than our powerful and unaccountable president. And, as such, he would be operating in direct conflict with the Constitution.
The nation's essential document makes it clear that every member of the executive branch is subject to legislative and judicial review.
Congress cannot delegate its oversight authority to a cabinet member, even in a time of turmoil. The opening section of the Constitution gives all -- emphasis on all -- legislative authority to the House and Senate. Under the well-established constitutional doctrine of nondelegation, Congress cannot cede that power in the manner that Paulson's draft plan proposed -- or, for that matter, in any manner whatsoever.
"It's hard to run afoul of the nondelegation doctrine, but if anything does, this is probably it," Jamie Raskin, a professor of constitutional law at American University's Washington College of Law, told the Maryland Daily Record, a newspaper that deals with legal issues. "How does Congress just give away $700 billion and tell the Secretary of the Treasury to figure out the rest?"
Raskin, a state senator, said that the doctrine of nondelegation "was the first thing I thought of when I heard that the administration's entire plan was on three pages and that the third page said $700 billion would be allocated to this purpose [and] programmatic details are to be fleshed out by the treasury department."
It is good that Raskin and a few others are reading the fine print.
It is necessary that Congress do the same.
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
--Congress cannot delegate its oversight authority to a cabinet member, even in a time of turmoil.--
Especially in a time of turmoil...
Posted by ttr at 09/23/2008 @ 12:53am
this is precisely the moment when conservatives will jump on the "small government" and "more regulation" bandwagon precisely when it benefits them politically.
nevermind that they have been supporting the most radical, authoritarian policies these last 8 years.....they're populists, now.
Posted by darladoon at 09/23/2008 @ 02:01am
ttr,
Interestingly, I was just now catching up on some Counterpunch posts that I missed recently, and found an excerpt from Alexander Cockburn's excellent post of this past weekend that applies quite adorably to the general position that you've espoused to me in the past:
"If Obama becomes president what advisors will he recruit? Will he keep Rubin at his side along with his passel of Chicago School economists? His left supporters hope that he has a secret plan under wraps, that a populist T-shirt lies under the decorous mask of bipartisanship. I doubt it. Caution and respectability seem integral to Obama's political persona. His core political task has been to assure the big-money funders of his campaign that as concerns maintenance of the present system his are a safe pair of hands. "Secret plan" theorists have some notion of "the real Obama" ripping off his mask on Inauguration Day. It doesn't work like that. The political system is designed to ensure that the mask becomes the man."
I've been arguing this exact point periodically ever since The Nation endorsed Obama back in (late December?) of last year.
I seriously hope that events will prove me wrong --Lord knows the time will be explosively ripe for a much more radical reform agenda when Obama swears in next January.
And if somehow it's not Obama....... readers here might be well-advised to begin seriously exploring their emigration options --to another continent.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/23/2008 @ 02:15am
Section 8 enables a de facto coup d'ιtat.
Not to strip Sec.8 completely is to approve a takeover of the US govt by forces we do not know & have not elected.
Not to strip Sec.8 completely is to nullify whatever the Election Day results are. Elections, increasingly meaningless in the US after the '00 Supreme Court approved theft, will be nothing more than virtual reality sideshows.
Posted by sloper at 09/23/2008 @ 02:36am
Hey slope,
Any recommendations for Nation readers on moving to another country if circumstances dictate?
I'd love to hear from you on this topic.
;-)
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/23/2008 @ 02:55am
I see you're on my wavelength... ;-D
From another thread:
"If W&Co waltz off scotfree with essentially what they want, US lawyers looking for a new niche might consider an emigration specialty, linking up with lawyers in Canada, the EU, the Antipodes, and a few Latin American countries, to expedite the exits of a few hundred thousand US residents who can still afford the move abroad.
From my longtime perch in the EU, this mini-migration from the US will be an interesting phenomenon to observe.
Bonne chance, mes amis.
The sooner you hit the road, the better off you'll be.
As Sec. Paulson says, don't wait, or it may be too late."
Posted by sloper at 09/23/2008 @ 02:55am
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/23/2008 @ 03:00am
Random observations.
AO Scott on the powerfully pathetic passing of, perhaps, a canary in our current coal mine, David Foster Wallace --thanks, Chris Hayes, for the heartfelt emotional evocation recently:
tinyurl.com/5xypy9
Also, a music video on youtube that captures a sliver of the increasing tempo of human destiny in an age of consumption driven madness:
tinyurl.com/3uxomq
(Aguirre, The Wrath of God is a --broadly unacknowledged to this day-- classic film.)
I've no intention of pessimism per se, just relaying a sense of where things all too apparently stand at the moment.
Hope still springs eternal --whether it's immediately evident or not.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/23/2008 @ 04:08am
Apologies for the (mildly) off topic post.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/23/2008 @ 04:09am
Here's something soothing to smooth the rough edge:
tinyurl.com/24dzm2
"Kick off your high heeled sneakers, it's party time."
Best to ya all.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/23/2008 @ 04:19am
Here's where it goes entirely off the rails.
My most craven post here at The Nation. Or anywhere for that matter --apologies to all who possess better judgment.
tinyurl.com/3pgamt
Let the "Gollums" here --and there are many-- squirm.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/23/2008 @ 04:45am
Interestingly, it's the Gollum mindset that has gotten us to this juncture.
I plead semi-guilty.
Peace, out.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/23/2008 @ 05:01am
Encore --a personal favorite blast from my juvenile (and still obviously present) past....as well as a clarion call for the "mystic chords and better angels of our nature" :
tinyurl.com/45cf5x
"Just one more morning, I have to wake up with the blues
Pull myself outta bed, yeah, pull on my walkin' shoes
Climb up on a hilltop, baby, see what I can see, yeah
The whole world's fallin' down on me, right down in front of me...."
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/23/2008 @ 05:21am
abrupt ending at 7:06 minutes, unfortunately.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/23/2008 @ 05:26am
Posted by sloper at 09/23/2008 @ 02:36am
"Section 8 enables a de facto coup d'ιtat.
Not to strip Sec.8 completely is to approve a takeover of the US govt by forces we do not know & have not elected.
Not to strip Sec.8 completely is to nullify whatever the Election Day results are. Elections, increasingly meaningless in the US after the '00 Supreme Court approved theft, will be nothing more than virtual reality sideshows."
Dude, you're a freaking section 8 yourself. Do you actually believe the crap you post? Theft of the election? Give us all a fucking break already, and lay off the kool aid.
Posted by pontificus at 09/23/2008 @ 07:34am
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/23/2008 @ 02:55am
"Any recommendations for Nation readers on moving to another country if circumstances dictate?
I'd love to hear from you on this topic.
;-)"
I hear there's plenty of room in Jonestown.
Posted by pontificus at 09/23/2008 @ 07:36am
"Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson draft proposal for the bailout of struggling financial-services firms sought to make himself the most powerful unelected official in American history through his proposal to take charge of vast sectors of the U.S. economy -- setting policy, buying and selling assets, determining whether financial institutions thrive or collapse -- with no oversight. "
I've got news for you. The Treasury Secretary, and the US government in general, has already taken charge of vast sectors of the US economy. This is through policies pushed by both Republicans, all too willing to dip their snouts into this exercise in government-run-amok and government-managed economic policy designed to accomplish social policy, and the Democrats, who see a government managed economy as the ideal. Who do you think took more FNMA and Freddie Mac money, McCain or Obama? Look it up and figure it out for yourself.
I'm a big believer in letting greedy management of companies like Lehman Brothers and similar travesties fail like they should. But the left needs to realize when you put the government in charge of the money, then politicians will be for sale to the highest bidder. If you want to take the money out of politics, take the politics out of the money. But you've heard this song before. You think corrupt politicians are a defect of a government managed economy...it's not. It's a feature.
Posted by pontificus at 09/23/2008 @ 07:43am
HOLDING THE BAG
NEWSWIRE--As Congress considers bailout legislation, there is uncertainty whether it will provide homeowners with mortgage assistance.
Halloween's still weeks away, But tricks of finance start today: Some get gift bags in the billions, Others, pennies (mere civilians). Whether treat's insane or small, Depends if street is Main- or Wall-.
www.newsandverse.com Light verse, ripped from the headlines
Posted by newsandverse at 09/23/2008 @ 07:52am
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/23/2008 @ 02:55am
"Any recommendations for Nation readers on moving to another country if circumstances dictate?
I'd love to hear from you on this topic.
;-)"
Cuba's nice. Great beaches. Progressive tax structure. Universal Health Care. Virtually unanimous elections, thanks to the lack of a private vote, just like the Dems are proposing for union certification elections. If French Guyana is not to your liking, this may be just the ticket. Of course there are a number of other socialist paradises beckoning to you, although not quite as many as there used to be.
Posted by pontificus at 09/23/2008 @ 07:58am
Pontificus, socialism has come to you, authoritarianism has been your wish, now it will be granted,
What say you to the New Nationalized Banking System of the United States? Put in place by the "free marketeers" you have salivated over for 8 years, those that can do no wrong, no matter how many laws and rules they break. (See recent Interior Dept tale of sex, drugs and the looting of your revenues)
How many "real" socialized, regulated, European banks are going down?
Posted by crabwalk at 09/23/2008 @ 09:07am
Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 09/23/2008 @ 08:59am
I am suprised you have left anything uneaten.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/23/2008 @ 09:09am
Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 09/23/2008 @ 08:59am
Poor Darin, in a bad way.
The only talking points out there are "This isn't Bush's fault...it's the DEMS' fault" from Fat-man and the Boy Blunder (Rush & his youthful ward Sean Hannity)....
and even the RIGHT is having a hard time selling that one....to itself!
So he's left with snarkiness....and the sinking feeling that Mr. "I Am Fundamentally A De-Regulator"'s chances in the Fall are slipping away, unless Obama wets himself in the debates and McCain comes off as William F. Buckley Jr with pizazz.
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/23/2008 @ 09:13am
"Interior dept sex drugs Bush"
Web 1-10 of 789,000 results
[Denver Post: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 WASHINGTON -- Government workers in Denver engaged in secret sex and drug abuse with oil company employees and accepted thousand of dollars in gifts while handling billions of dollars worth of energy contracts, federal investigators said today.
Employees at the Minerals Management Service including the former head of the Denver division repeatedly and "without remorse" violated ethics rules over a four-year period, the Interior Department's Inspector General said.
The three reports released today describe a widespread pattern of abuse as well as a pervasive belief that the rules didn't apply.
...Many of the alleged misdeeds occurred when Gale Norton worked as Interior Department Secretary. Now working as a general counsel with Royal Dutch Shell in Denver, Norton declined comment.
]-http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_10428441
and you cons want to give chimpy McFlightsuits minions MORE power?
WTF is wrong with you people?
Posted by crabwalk at 09/23/2008 @ 09:14am
Posted by crabwalk at 09/23/2008 @ 09:07am
Secret sex? As opposed to what, public sex?
Sounds like the regulated were in bed with the regulators. Literally. Happens all the time. It's what happens when you put the government up for sale. You think all those earmarks are accidental? When are 'managed economy' guys going to realize that political corruption is part of the deal when you put the government in charge of the economy? Helloooooooo McFly!!!!!!
Posted by pontificus at 09/23/2008 @ 09:33am
Posted by pontificus at 09/23/2008 @ 09:33am
sure, Ponti, sure. It's all OK. Funny how it's your guy that wants to put his guy in charge of the guvt.
All Ok except for Sandy Berger and his Slave Cohort.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/23/2008 @ 09:41am
Posted by pontificus at 09/23/2008 @ 09:33am
What then is the option for regulation? Certainly letting the economy police itself has show 700 billion reasons it doesn't work.
Posted by leftofcenter at 09/23/2008 @ 09:42am
Not to strip Sec.8 completely is to nullify whatever the Election Day results are.
Posted by sloper at 09/23/2008 @ 02:36am
actually, having an empty treasury and buggagunzillions in debt have already done that.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/23/2008 @ 09:45am
You think corrupt politicians are a defect of a government managed economy...it's not. It's a feature.
Posted by pontificus at 09/23/2008 @ 07:43am
hmmm.........
CORRUPTION INDEX, 2008:
1 Denmark
1 New Zealand
1 Sweden
4 Singapore
5 Finland
5 Switzerland
7 Iceland
7 Netherlands
9 Australia
9 Canada
11 Luxembourg
12 Austria
12 Hong Kong
14 Germany
14 Norway
16 Ireland
16 United Kingdom
18 Belgium
18 Japan
18 USA
http://www.transparency.org/news_room/in_focus/20
08/cpi2008/cpi_2008_table
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/23/2008 @ 09:55am
Posted by leftofcenter at 09/23/2008 @ 09:42am
"What then is the option for regulation? Certainly letting the economy police itself has show 700 billion reasons it doesn't work."
I think the problem is people are having trouble distinguishing between the legitimate and proper role of government, which is regulation of a free market economy, vs. the use of the government to manage the economy to achieve social purposes, which is a far dicier proposition. The housing bubble was greatly fostered by those in the government or quasi-government who kept interest rates artificially low and lending practices loose in order to foster home ownership. This government policy brought far too many people into the market and distorted it. As I said, Obama is not part of the cure for this, he's part of the disease, as he is advocating even MORE management as a cure. He took even more money from GNMA and Freddie Mac than McCain. You guys forget, Bush was a 'compassionate' (ie, activist government) conservative, not a true conservative. McCain's no better, but he's not as bad as Obama.
Posted by pontificus at 09/23/2008 @ 09:58am
You think all those earmarks are accidental?
Posted by pontificus at 09/23/2008 @ 09:33am
http://economistsview.typepad.com/pho
tos/uncategorized/2008/09/13/earmarks.gif
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/23/2008 @ 10:00am
Posted by pontificus at 09/23/2008 @ 09:58am
at the top of the page you will find the logout function. ⬆⬆⬆
’’’’’
We have previously noted that periods of a steep term structure, reflecting low short-term interest rates relative to inflation expectations and therefore a stimulative monetary policy stance, are not randomly distributed but instead strongly persistent over long periods in our sample. There are five such periods:
1975II 1977II: All under the Ford administration, ending as Carter takes office.
1982III 1985IV: All in the Reagan administration, ending a year after his reelection.
1987II 1988II: Again under Reagan, starting before the stock market crash, and preceding the election of GHW Bush.
1991II 1994IV: Beginning under GHW Bush, ending under Clinton.
2001IV 2004III: Beginning with 9/11, continuing through the reelection campaign of GW Bush.
The pattern is reasonably plain: periods of sustained, abnormally low interest rates all begin during Republican administrations. All end following an election involving a Republican incumbent or his immediate successor.
’’’’’
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/23/2008 @ 10:09am
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/23/2008 @ 10:09am
Yeah, and when the AFC wins the Super Bowl, the stock market usually does well.
You have to demonstrate causation, not correlation.
Posted by pontificus at 09/23/2008 @ 10:13am
Constitution - what Constitution?
Our government is making up it up as they go - improvisation with no structure, no rules. The constitution just gets in the way.
Since we are using some nice lyrics in posts today...how about.....
"The time is right for __________ _________." Hint.....famous British rock group.
Precensured for NSA.
Posted by OneVote at 09/23/2008 @ 10:25am
hey ponti,
you never did respond to the numbers:
(you said you didn't have time. looks like you do now. or will you cut'n'run again?)
Here's the rate of job growth for the administrations since 1960: Kennedy-Johnson 3.27% Nixon-Ford 4.93% Carter 3.06% Reagan 2.06% Bush I 0.60% Clinton 2.38% Bush II 0.59% <><><><><> by average annual GDP growth: Kennedy-Johnson -- 5.2% Clinton -- 3.6% Reagan -- 3.4% Carter -- 3.4% Nixon-Ford -- 2.7% Bush II -- 2.6% Bush I -- 1.9% <><><><><> SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS() AS PERCENTAGES OF GDP 1970 0.3 r 1971 2.1 r 1972 2.0 r 1973 1.1 r 1974 0.4 r 1975 3.4 r 1976 4.2 r 1977 2.7 d 1978 2.7 d 1979 1.6 d 1980 2.7 d 1981 2.6 r 1982 4.0 r 1983 6.0 r 1984 4.8 r 1985 5.1 r 1986 5.0 r 1987 3.2 r 1988 3.1 r 1989 2.8 r 1990 3.9 r 1991 4.5 r 1992 4.7 r 1993 3.9 d 1994 2.9 d 1995 2.2 d 1996 1.4 d 1997 0.3 d 1998 0.8 d 1999 1.4 d 2000 2.4 d 2001 1.3 r 2002 1.5 r 2003 3.5 r 2004 estimate* 4.5 r 2005 estimate* 3.0 r 2006 estimate* 2.1 r 2007 estimate* 1.8 r 2008 estimate* 1.7 r 2009 estimate 1.6 r *as you know these estimates turned out to be b.s. <<<<>>>> federal employees (in thousands) 1971 5,675 R 1972 5,225 R 1973 5,113 R 1974 5,091 R 1975 5,061 R 1976 5,002 R 1977 5,005 D 1978 5,028 D 1979 4,939 D 1980 4,965 D 1981 4,982 R 1982 4,972 R 1983 5,039 R 1984 5,088 R 1985 5,256 R 1986 5,228 R 1987 5,301 R 1988 5,289 R 1989 5,292 R 1990 5,234 R 1991 5,152 R 1992 4,931 R 1993 4,758 D 1994 4,620 D 1995 4,475 D 1996 4,354 D 1997 4,226 D 1998 4,196 D 1999 4,135 D 2000 4,129 D 2001 4,132* R 2002 4,152* R 2003 4,210* R 2004 4,187* R 2005 4,138* R 2006 4,133* R *no significant rise during bush II can be attributed to extensive use of outsourcing, particularly in "intelligence" military.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/23/2008 @ 10:25am
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/23/2008 @ 10:25am
Like I said above, FROSTY, when it comes to policies, you have to demonstrate causation, not correlation. It is well known that figures can lie, and liars can figure, and you can show me all the figures you want which 'prove' one position or another, but without some sort of theoretical construct at least attempting to link cause and effect, you're wasting your time and mine.
For example, many lefties on here claim to 'prove' that raising taxes does not hurt the economy, using figures in the same way that you do. Of course, the premise itself is an absurdity, because simple reductio ad absurdum demonstrates that if raising taxes did not hurt the economy, then there would be no reason not to raise them to 100 percent and make everyone rich off of government redistributed largesse. It's this separation of cause from reality that leads so many arguments (and conclusions) astray.
Posted by pontificus at 09/23/2008 @ 10:33am
BOK BOK BOK BOCKAAAAAAAWW!
BOK BOK BOK BOCKAAAAAAAWW!
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/23/2008 @ 10:36am
numbers?
ha!
gut. that's the answer.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/23/2008 @ 10:37am
reagan doubled debt. no war.
bush II doubled debt. stupid war.
terrorism? uh, o.k. that explains it.
no way. these guys inflate the economy like some kind of party balloon and then leave the dumbocrats to clean up.
pathetic.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/23/2008 @ 11:04am
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/23/2008 @ 11:04am
"reagan doubled debt. no war.
bush II doubled debt. stupid war.
terrorism? uh, o.k. that explains it.
no way. these guys inflate the economy like some kind of party balloon and then leave the dumbocrats to clean up.
pathetic."
What's pathetic is your disconnect from reality, FROSTY. You and your ilk advocate spending trillions on social programs, then you blame the opposition for sky-high deficits by 'proving' that this or that war is unnecessary. The fact is, 80 percent of our budget is social programs, but idiots like you blame it on the other 20 percent. Now THAT'S pathetic.
Posted by pontificus at 09/23/2008 @ 11:17am
b_kool_66 at 09/23/2008 @ 02:15am...
I welcome Obama's centrist temperament... and it sends no paroxysms tweakiness through my patriots demeanor.
Wherever you fly to... America will be waiting there to greet you with open arms...
"you can check out any time you like... but you can never leave."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcwr1nbmWLI
Posted by ttr at 09/23/2008 @ 11:35am
pontificus at 09/23/2008 @ 11:17am...
--You and your ilk advocate spending trillions on social programs...--
Oh no... you're right, Poni-yak... spending trillions on arguably pointless 'decider's wars... and 'head games' in the investment sector...
...has produced such a thriving US economy... who would EVER CONSIDER government intervention into its very hallowed halls?
Posted by ttr at 09/23/2008 @ 11:53am
Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 09/23/2008 @ 11:44am
"In all fairness, the real numbers are about 55% social, 25% military, 10% net interest on the debt, the rest is roads and courts and Congress, etc. About 1% - 2% is indefensible pork of the Bridge to nowhere variety."
Do these figures include 'off the books' entitlements which the Congress has obligated us to pay, including:
- Social Security - Medicare - Bush's Prescription tax plan...
And if Obama is elected, the trillions more that the Democratic Congress is sure to push through in additional 'Universal Health Care' expenditures?
Posted by pontificus at 09/23/2008 @ 12:23pm
What's pathetic is your disconnect from reality, FROSTY.
go on,
You and your ilk
my "ilk"? go on,
advocate spending trillions on social programs,
i do?
then you blame the opposition for sky-high deficits by 'proving' that this or that war is unnecessary.
WAR! GOTTA LOVE IT! SQUISH THE TOWELHEADS!
The fact is, 80 percent of our budget is social programs,
cut the taxes! free the poor!
but idiots like you
a la chingada contigo, pendejo :+]
blame it on the other 20 percent.
no way. war rocks!
Now THAT'S pathetic. Posted by pontificus at 09/23/2008 @ 11:17am
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/23/2008 @ 12:26pm
On The Medicare And Social Security Unfunded Liabilities
There are two reasons why the era of the United States as most prosperous and dominant world power is going come to an end in the first half of the 21st century. One obvious reason is the continued rapid economic growth in the far more populous China. The other reason is that the United States internally faces very unfavorable demographic trends. The two biggest unfavorable trends are in the pattern of immigration and the aging of the population. Robert E. Moffit, Ph.D., and Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation provide a good overview of the grim financial outlook for Social Security and Medicare.
Title I of the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 creates a new and complex universal prescription drug entitlement. According to the latest Medicare trustees report, the Medicare hospital insurance program will be exhausted in 2019, seven years earlier than the past year's estimate.[1] But that is just the tip of the iceberg. The hospital insurance trust fund does not include the new drug entitlement, and that alone will add $8.1 trillion to the program's long-term unfunded liabilities over the next 75 years.[2]
Medicare's massive costs will result in huge tax increases. According to Medicare Trustee Thomas R. Saving, a professor of economics at Texas A&M University and senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, the Medicare program is now projected to consume:
* 24 percent of all federal income taxes by 2019 and * 51 percent of all federal income taxes by 2042.
The true cost of the drug entitlement expansion is unknown, and the trustees could be understating the real cost. When the new Medicare law was enacted in 2003, the Congressional
Posted by pontificus at 09/23/2008 @ 12:31pm
Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 09/23/2008 @ 11:44am "In all fairness, the real numbers are about 55% social, 25% military, 10% net interest on the debt, the rest is roads and courts and Congress, etc. About 1% - 2% is indefensible pork of the Bridge to nowhere variety."
The problem is, our obligations under Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the recently enacted Prescription drug benefit will require us to raise taxes hugely within 10 years as the demographics plays out. What this means is that we have a huge unfunded liability that we are living off of now. I think of it as paying our current mortgage with a credit card that our children will have to pay.
Whatever way you look at it, we have huge obligations under social programs that are NOT reflected in our current budget. Analysts who DO make these calculations raise the relative proportions from the accounting calculations you cite up in to the 80 percent range, if these obligations are properly accounted for.
Do you think our children are going to pay this kind of tax increase? I don't.
And what about the 'Universal Health Care' and other vast expansions of the social welfare state that the Democrats are now blithely demanding, seemingly unaware that we are already living well beyond our means?
Posted by pontificus at 09/23/2008 @ 12:37pm
I'm a big believer in letting greedy management of companies like Lehman Brothers and similar travesties fail like they should. But the left needs to realize when you put the government in charge of the money, then politicians will be for sale to the highest bidder. If you want to take the money out of politics, take the politics out of the money. But you've heard this song before. You think corrupt politicians are a defect of a government managed economy...it's not. It's a feature.
Posted by pontificus at 09/23/2008 @ 07:43am
Ponti, you're about as far off the mark as you could be...as usual. The government doesn't and hasn't regulated the markets per say. They enforce anti-trust laws as well as prosecute market manipulation via the SEC. Problem is that W appointed an asshole who looked the other way and also the laws that kept businesses realitively in check were repealled in 1999....signed into law by Clinton, but passed by a republican congress. Plenty of blame to go around there, but the bottom line is that wallstreet and the financial industries were running completely unchecked.
Any system worth a damn has feedback in it to regulate the output. Financial systems are no different. Remove the regulation, the system runs out of control.
Could you imagine if all of a sudden some idiot decided to just remove all laws period? We'd have mass chaos on our hands. That's pretty much what you rethug idiots did in the market system. Good work lame brains. Now deal with your eff-up and quit spinning it to make it look like you weren't for deregulation of a bunch of money grabbing assholes.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/23/2008 @ 12:39pm
he Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the 10-year cost at $395 billion. Less than three months later, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) revealed that it estimated the 10-year cost at $534 billion.[4]
As irresponsible and deceitful (see below) as the Bush Administration has been while getting the Medicare drug benefit bill enacted the Democrats wanted something that was even worse:
Ironically, the entire financial situation could be far worse. During the debate on the new drug entitlement, Democrats offered proposals that would have cost nearly $1 trillion in the first 10 years,[6] far in excess of anything proposed by the Administration or the congressional leadership. Many critics of the new drug program actually want a more expensive program.
Keep this in mind as we hear Democratic Party Congressional figures criticize the Bush Administration on Medicare. There's no good side in this fight.
The financial projections on Medicare's future have deteriorated drastically in just the last 2 years.
As recently as 2002, Medicare's projected insolvency date was 2030 and trustees said the program wouldn't need to tap its reserves until 2016. Last year, trustees advanced the dates to 2026 and 2013, respectively.
Now the bankruptcy is expected in 2019 and Medicare is already dipping into its reserves this year.
The government health care program for older and disabled Americans will have to take $7.5 billion from its reserves this year to meet its expenses, government trustees said Tuesday in their annual report.
The new Medicare drug benefit alone has a bigger unfunded liability than Social Security.
In a briefing Tuesday on Capitol Hill, NCPA Senior Fellow and Social Security and Medicare Trustee Thomas R. Saving rep
Posted by pontificus at 09/23/2008 @ 12:41pm
The new Medicare drug benefit alone has a bigger unfunded liability than Social Security.
In a briefing Tuesday on Capitol Hill, NCPA Senior Fellow and Social Security and Medicare Trustee Thomas R. Saving reported that:
* Social Security faces an unfunded liability of $10.4 trillion. * Medicare's unfunded liability is $61.6 trillion - six times greater than Social Security's. * The prescription drug benefit alone faces a funding gap of $16.6 trillion - more than 50 percent greater than Social Security's. * By 2020, the combined deficits in these programs will consume more than one-fourth of all federal income taxes. * By 2030, about the midpoint of the baby boomer retirement years, deficits in the two programs will consume more than half of all federal incomes taxes. * By 2050, when today's college students will reach retirement age, Social Security and Medicare will require more than three- fourths of all income taxes just to pay benefits currently promised.
Posted by pontificus at 09/23/2008 @ 12:43pm
Even the kool-aid drinking estimate of the Iraq War was 1 trillion. Anyone else, like FROSTY, care to make the case that this is significant compared to the social program obligations the Democrats (and Republicans!) have committed us to?
Posted by pontificus at 09/23/2008 @ 12:44pm
And if somehow it's not Obama....... readers here might be well-advised to begin seriously exploring their emigration options --to another continent.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/23/2008 @ 02:15am
I have been "exploring emigration options" for about 2 years now. It doesn't look good. Unless you are lucky enough to have family or friends living in another country who are willing to help. Otherwise you have to use what I call "Bonzai Emmigration". It's fairly simple. You find a country that will meet your needs and buy a roundtrip transferable open ended plane ticket. Then when you arrrive as a "tourist" you just stay. Sell the return half of your plane ticket.
I have done this before. Best advice is to make friends quickly. Employment can be sticky so have enough money with you to last a few months at least (six months is better). If you made some friends you will eventually find employment. Be prepared to accept low wages, as you will be working undocumented. Always fly under the radar and don't rock the boat. After awhile a good friend or employer may agree to sponsor you for proper emmigration. You may be surprised how easy it is. Then again you may get deported. It's a bit of a risky proposition but can be a liberating and rewarding experience.
Posted by chaoszen at 09/23/2008 @ 12:52pm
well maybe if you had promoted energy conservation and r and d the dollar would actually be worth something.
alas.......
BTW i don't drink kool-aid. the stuff is poison. same with fast food. no wonder your health care costs are DOUBLE any other country's.
whatever.......
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/23/2008 @ 12:54pm
but can be a liberating and rewarding experience.
Posted by chaoszen at 09/23/2008 @ 12:52pm
yep.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/23/2008 @ 12:58pm
plus,
if energy r and d had been pursued,
you wouldn't need to fight "terrorism"....
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/23/2008 @ 12:59pm
Even the kool-aid drinking estimate of the Iraq War was 1 trillion. Anyone else, like FROSTY, care to make the case that this is significant compared to the social program obligations the Democrats (and Republicans!) have committed us to?
Posted by pontificus at 09/23/2008 @ 12:44pm
Ponti, How about telling us how much the Iraq and Afghanistan wars along with the war on terror are costing us. How about the department of homeland defense? Oh, how much do we spend on the pentagon, DOD and defense in total including the secret super duper classified weapons appropriations monies that only the classified people from Mars have clearance to see (besides the defense contractors makinng the money from the contracts)?
You are a jerk. You could give a shit less about American people. You just want you friggin investment portfolio to give you the highest yield possible without worrying about the consequences of how that investment might be going about actually making it's money. In the end, it's blood money plain and simple. Someone has to work for your money to make money to line your pockets. Otherwise, you'd be working for your own money yourself.
I have money if 401k's and a retirement plan, but I'd rather lose it all and have to work longer and possibly never retire than retire on the broken back of some poor bastard in another country or this country for that matter working 80 to 100 hours per week doing hard labor.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/23/2008 @ 12:59pm
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/23/2008 @ 12:59pm
"You are a jerk."
And you, my friend, are an ignoramus. Have fun paying for my social security, medicaid, and medicare...you better hope about three kids are stupid enough to pay for yours...
Posted by pontificus at 09/23/2008 @ 1:07pm
Getting rid of democracy is the heart of the approach by Wall Street and both Parties.
Paulson is a former CEO of Goldman Sachs. He is just directly transferring Goldman's private control into the public arena.
The public should jail him for crimes against the working class.
Posted by ElyDog at 09/23/2008 @ 1:08pm
It seems once again, Nichols charge is obsolete before he even posted it.
"Treasury Relents on Key Points Plan Now Envisions Oversight of Cleanup
Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/23/2008 @ 10:56am | warn this person
Negotiation 101.....take an initial position that is outrageous and repugnant to the Constitution and then give a little during the negotiation so it seem like the other side has got a modicum of what they want. Its nice to know whom Mr. Paulson advocates for. He shouldn't be an advocate, he should be looking out for the American people. What a disgrace....what a shameful disgrace.
Posted by OneVote at 09/23/2008 @ 1:09pm
The following is from a statement by Barney Frank on the floor of the house, 11 September, 2008. He read a Washington Post article on the financial bailout into the record.
'In the Washington Post, Wednesday, September 10th, Steven Pearlstein once again provides a thoughtful, balanced analysis of the public policy issues involved here:
"...From the left, meanwhile, come populist complaints that government has committed enormous amounts of taxpayer money to bail out corporate fat cats and rich investors while ignoring the plight of millions of Americans facing personal bankruptcy and foreclosure. While there is validity to these concerns, they are also based on a number of false assumptions...It's anyone's guess what the Fannie and Freddie rescue will cost, but at this point it looks to have been structured on terms quite favorable to the government. Although the government is yet to put a dime into the companies, it has received $1 billion worth of preferred stock and warrants for 80 percent of both companies' common stock simply for agreeing to provide backstop financing....Remember that even with the rescues, top executives at Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lost their jobs, their reputations and most of their net worth, while long-term investors lost all but a tiny fraction of their money...." ' -- http://www.house.gov/frank/ pearlstein091008.html
Posted by HonestLiberal at 09/23/2008 @ 1:30pm
PONTI....
how much of Medicare and Social Security has Maverick John promised to cut?
If none, then who exactly is carrying your banner?
If nobody...then you better come up with something new.
LOL
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/23/2008 @ 1:46pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/23/2008 @ 1:46pm
THIS is where planti's hopes LIE:
"Well, you know, first, Fannie and Freddie, different because quasi-government agencies there where government had to step in because the adverse impacts all across our nation, especially with homeowners, is just too impacting. We had to step in there. I do not like the idea, though, of taxpayers being used to bail out these corporations. Today, with AIG, important call there, though, because of the construction bonds and the insurance carrier duties of AIG. But, first and foremost, taxpayers cannot be looked to as the bailout, as the solution to the problems on Wall Street."
heheh.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/23/2008 @ 1:53pm
Thanks, FZ, for reminding us of the divine Sarah's economic expertise.
No wonder her debate with Biden has been placed under strict rules limited to 2-minute memorized answers.
And the Dems agreed to this farce.
See? They all believe We the People are suckers. All it takes is a little lipstick & tons of chutzpah.
Push push push, and what is the other guy's can be all yours.
Posted by sloper at 09/23/2008 @ 2:15pm
Now, it's time to be afraid.
Posted by Freewheelin_Franklin at 09/23/2008 @ 2:16pm
Posted by chaoszen at 09/23/2008 @ 12:52pm
This is in addition to my previous post. To be more specific, it is not advisable to have less than $20,000 in your pocket when you arrive at your destination country. Back in the day I did it with $1,500 in American Express Travellers checks in my possession. But no more. If your choice is a Europeon country like France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland or perhaps the Aland Islands (my current target). You will need more money than you think. Also don't take a bunch of crap with you. Travel light. You need less stuff than you think.
It is also advisable to emigrate with a group of people of like mind and similar resources if possible. This can increase the chances of success, because the group can pool resources and assist in networking with the native population. The downside is a group attracts more attention and the inevitable feuding within the group can cause disentegration.
I don't know if anyone seriously needs to know this stuff. But I just thought I would toss my 2 cents in..
Posted by chaoszen at 09/23/2008 @ 2:16pm
gosh Ponti, who was it that put together the drug benifit that is so costly? Our "ilk"? Or the guy you voted for? the same guy pushing for this bailout of Wall Street?
nahhh, it must be "the left" is actually George W. Bush (r) conservative. You know the guy, he has two off-budget wars rolling right now, the CEO president (meaning the CEO'S president)
but, I can see how any effort to help the elderly or poor would conflict with your christianity, whereas war fits perfectly well with the words of that community organizer the religion is founded on.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/23/2008 @ 2:30pm
Check out Ron Paul in today's CNN.com. He says the solution is not government intervention because financial institutions such as AIG will continue to get away with murder as long as government will keep on bailing them out.
The solution is to let them bust and keep the Federal budget as small as possible. Now, those are true Republican values.
Posted by nursevic at 09/23/2008 @ 2:42pm
Posted by nursevic at 09/23/2008 @ 2:42pm
Maybe you had better email chimpy and let him know what "real republican values" are.
while your at it, drop Sarah a line and give her a hint about "family values".
Of course these things change daily.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/23/2008 @ 2:49pm
Maybe Phil Gramm could sort this all out for us. He is a "real conservative".
The Phantom "real conservative", kind of like Phred Thompson or Reagan, without the divorces, family problems, acting career, membership in SAG, etc etc etc...
Posted by crabwalk at 09/23/2008 @ 2:52pm
overwhelming liberal bias in the media is a fucking liar.
Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 09/23/2008 @ 3:09pm
You have got to be kidding. The media is owned by large corporations. Which one of them could be concieved as "liberal". And if so what is your definition of "liberal". Liberal bias in the corporate media is a lie. So that makes you a liar or a frothy mouthed babbling moron. Take your pick.
Posted by chaoszen at 09/23/2008 @ 3:20pm
so wait, we are going to solve a problem that began by having no oversight by giving the people called in to fix it no oversight? something doesn't jive with this.
Posted by palehorse67 at 09/23/2008 @ 3:33pm
'None of this should come as a surprise. The nation's newsrooms are Democratic strongholds, and that cannot help but affect their coverage of the news. Evan Thomas, the assistant managing editor of Newsweek, put it plainly last month.
"Let's talk a little media bias here,'' he said on the PBS program ``Inside Washington'' on July 11. "The media, I think, want Kerry to win. And I think they're going to portray Kerry and Edwards . . . as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all, there's going to be this glow about them that is going to be worth, collectively, the two of them, that's going to be worth maybe 15 points.'' ...' Jeff Jacoby -- Boston Globe -- 23 August, 2004
Posted by HonestLiberal at 09/23/2008 @ 3:50pm
something doesn't jive with this.
Posted by palehorse67 at 09/23/2008 @ 3:33pm
It doesn't jive because we are in the midst of an economic coup. This process is an attempt to upload on credit more money to the people that screwed us in the first place, to screw us again. It's a bit like lending money to a compulsive gambler. Both parties are discussing and debating this like it is a natural thing and nothing is wrong. Sort of like the enablers in an addicts family.
This country is broke. The ones who made it that way are attempting to cover up the crime and abscond with money that does not exist yet. It is an attempt to give them the opportunity to steal money that doesn't exist yet. But if congress succeeds in providing them with an enabling promissary note of hundreds of billions of dollars, then they can steal even more money for those not even born. We should not tolerate this. But we are a nation of cowards. If we had any balls Washington would be burning. But this a country of sheep who don't even realize they are being sheared.
Posted by chaoszen at 09/23/2008 @ 4:03pm
I will gladly pay social security, medicaid and medicare even for the likes of you Ponti. I'm not so worried that someone is going to get something I'm not going to get. I got past that somewhere when around the age of 7 or 8.
Maybe you'll get there some day, but I highly doubt it.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/23/2008 @ 4:07pm
Good God people! The country is facing meltdown and all I see on this board is name-calling and finger pointing.
It looks like cooler heads will prevail, though. Check this link out:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94950330
Posted by Balrog at 09/23/2008 @ 4:10pm
Listening to a speech by Iranian President Ahmadinejad. What a nutcase. Every other word is God this and God that. Sounds strangely familiar. Like a bunch of Christian fundamentalists. I can't understand those who would pretend to speak for God. It seems to take real human problems and place them in the arena of an imagined spectral being. That is a strange and dangerous psychosis.
It seems much of the human race is clinically insane. Just to think when I was a child I looked up to the grownups and thought they had all the answers. Only to find out later that they were insane. Now that is a funny but tragic Cosmic Joke. If there is a God you can't say it doesn't have a twisted sense of hunor.
Posted by chaoszen at 09/23/2008 @ 4:37pm
Good God people! The country is facing meltdown and all I see on this board is name-calling and finger pointing.
Posted by Balrog at 09/23/2008 @ 4:10pm
i don't know if the country is facing a meltdown just quite yet, i just hope you weren't planning on getting a home loan any time soon.
Posted by palehorse67 at 09/23/2008 @ 4:38pm
Hey, want another way to verify that the USA has had a dic'tatorship for the last 7 years-- :
"I think what they're doing is just wrong. And I think that it's likely to fail, and it's likely to make the situation worse over time. And I think that [U.S. Treasury] Secretary [Henry] Paulson has shown almost no understanding of how a democracy operates. His initial draft would have given him $700 billion of your tax money with no oversight, no judicial review, no accountability. I mean, we're not a dictatorship."
Newt, er, guess again...
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/23/2008 @ 4:59pm
Posted by Balrog at 09/23/2008 @ 4:10pm
Thanks for the link Balrog. Let's hope they don't rubber stamp this legal form of extortion exacted upon the people of the United States. What's the term.....graft, ya, that's it graft. Legislation of illicit gain to those who played the system, lost and then get rewarded through secretary Paulson and GWB.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/23/2008 @ 5:00pm
i don't know if the country is facing a meltdown just quite yet, i just hope you weren't planning on getting a home loan any time soon.
Posted by palehorse67 at 09/23/2008 @ 4:38pm
My credit rating is like -720. Never borrowed any money. Never had a credit card. I would not consider a home loan if it was offered. My philosophy is if you can't afford to buy it now, you can't afford it. The only time I violate this axiom is concerning healthcare. Since I believe my survival and physical well being is guaranteed by the constitution, I refuse to pay any medical bills that come my way. Which is reflected in my credit score. The upside is I get the opportunity to discuss my medically deadbeat attitude with the many bill collectors who somehow get my phone number. I treat them as prank calls and respond in kind. It is an endless source of amusement.
Posted by chaoszen at 09/23/2008 @ 5:07pm
What a bunch of pure crap there is on this comment board.
Posted by Steve C. at 09/23/2008 @ 5:25pm
What a bunch of pure crap there is on this comment board.
Posted by Steve C. at 09/23/2008 @ 5:25pm
Not until you showed up!
Posted by chaoszen at 09/23/2008 @ 5:31pm
What a bunch of pure crap there is on this comment board.
Posted by Steve C. at 09/23/2008 @ 5:25pm
Also this is not a "message board". You can't find your lost puppy here or sell your skateboard. This is a "Blog".
Posted by chaoszen at 09/23/2008 @ 5:36pm
Now we;re supposed to sign over our economy to the financial whizzers that got us into our present mess.
Maybe our economy has been going downhill -- not least because of the tilt from the conservatives towards economic distress for the rest of us -- but these guys have turned our economy into a slalom race, all downhill.
What a fine mess Bush is leaving for Obama. God help us if McCain gets to be in charge.
Posted by jkrogman at 09/23/2008 @ 9:01pm
an overwhelming liberal bias in the media is a fucking liar.
Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 09/23/2008
are you referring to the media owned by ge, disney, newscorp, sony and viacom?
hmmmm.
yep,
LIBERAL STALINIST MANIPULATORS!!!!!
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/23/2008 @ 9:52pm
It seems much of the human race is clinically insane.
Posted by chaoszen at 09/23/2008 @ 4:37pm
let's go!
i'm moving to vulcan soon.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/23/2008 @ 9:54pm
Since I believe my survival and physical well being is guaranteed by the constitution, I refuse to pay any medical bills that come my way.
Posted by chaoszen at 09/23/2008 @ 5:07pm
while i agree that taking credit is a bad idea,
doctors and nurses do work hard.
so you would pay a dude to cut your lawn but not pay a dude to cut out your appendix?
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/23/2008 @ 9:57pm
What a bunch of pure crap there is on this comment board.
Projected by Steve C. at 09/23/2008 @ 5:25pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/23/2008 @ 9:58pm
Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 09/23/2008 @ 3:09pm
Well, now, in fairness...
compared to Darin, Bill O'Reilly is a "moderate".
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/23/2008 @ 10:04pm
What has been constitutional about the Bush administration? Nothing.
Should we allow the scare tactics that this administration so blatantly applied to be used now to quickly, without serious comprehensive consideration being given the ramifications of such a structure of bailout? Absolutely not!
The Bush administration is the reason we are in the mess we are in today and for them to suddenly push to shove their method of repair down our throats is total BS.
How many months are left of these idiots at the helm. Can our country make it until Feb 09?
Bail out? We need to be bailed out of this administration and their incompetence.
McCain/Palin? You must be on drugs to even consider it.
Posted by Hoot at 09/24/2008 @ 12:10am
high-fructose corn syrup is a drug?
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/24/2008 @ 12:48am
OMG!
Robert Rubin Rewrites the Rules
NEWS: Former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin gets cozy with the banking industry while helping push through a bill freeing financial institutions to merge into ever larger megacorporations while largely absolving them of much of their legal obligation to invest in the communities in which they do business.
By Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman
’’’’ NOVEMBER 9, 1999 ’’’’
The centerpiece of the deregulatory bill, which different fragments of the finance industry have pushed for a decade and a half, is the repeal of the revered Glass-Steagall Act, which bars companies from owning banks and insurance companies or securities firms at the same time.
And the weakening of the CRA is only one element of the finance industry's deregulatory wish list which is included in the compromise legislation. The bill will:
pave the way for a new round of record-shattering financial industry mergers, dangerously concentrating political and economic power;
CREATE TOO-BIG-TO-FAIL INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE SOMEDAY LIKELY TO DRAIN THE PUBLIC TREASURY AS TAXPAYERS BAIL OUT IMPERILED FINANCIAL GIANTS TO PROTECT THE STABILITY OF THE NATION'S BANKING SYSTEM;
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1999/11/fotc10.html
and lvliberty will tell me that motherjones is an asinine marxist rag........
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/24/2008 @ 02:33am
GRAMM'S STATEMENT AT SIGNING CEREMONY FOR GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY ACT
Sen. Phil Gramm, chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, made the following statement today in a ceremony at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, where President Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act into law:
"The world changes, and Congress and the laws have to change with it.
"Abraham Lincoln used to like to use the analogy that old and outmoded laws need to be changed because it made about as much sense to continue to impose them on people as it did to ask a man to wear the same clothes he did when he was a child.
"In the 1930s, at the trough of the Depression, when Glass-Steagall became law, it was believed that government was the answer. It was believed that stability and growth came from government overriding the functioning of free markets.
"We are here today to repeal Glass-Steagall because we have learned that government is not the answer. We have learned that freedom and competition are the answers. We have learned that we promote economic growth and we promote stability by having competition and freedom.
"I am proud to be here because this is an important bill; it is a deregulatory bill. I believe that that is the wave of the future, and I am awfully proud to have been a part of making it a reality."
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/24/2008 @ 02:36am
Thursday, November 4, 1999 202-224-0894
GRAMM CLOSING FLOOR STATEMENT
ON GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY ACT OF 1999
"Mr. President, success is claimed by a thousand parents. And today there are a lot of people who can claim parenthood. I am very happy to have played a part in delivering the bill before the Senate today.
"I think it represents the American legislative process at its best. It has resulted more from an effort to reach a logical conclusion than to satisfy various special interest groups. In that way, it is not unique but it is different.
"But the question is not how proud we are of this bill today. The question is, How will it look 50 years from now when it has gone from infancy to maturity?
"Obviously, after setting out a dramatic change in public policy, it is fair to set out a test for determining its success. How will people judge whether we were successful in passing this bill today? My test is, What are we trying to do in the bill? Are we trying to benefit banks or insurance companies or securities companies, or are we trying to benefit consumers and workers?
"The test that I believe we should use--the test I will use, the test I hope people looking at this bill years in the future will use--is, Did it produce a greater diversity of products and services for American consumers? Were those products better? And did they sell at a lower price? I think if the answer to those three questions is yes, then this bill will have succeeded.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/24/2008 @ 02:40am
"The world changes, and we have to change with it. Abraham Lincoln used to tell the story about how Government had to change all outmoded laws because they did not fit anymore, much as it would be unreasonable to expect a man to wear the same clothes he wore as a boy; that there is a nature to things and to society, and as they change, Government has to change to recognize the new reality.
"I believe today we are changing financial services in America to reflect that we do have a new century coming and we have an opportunity to dominate that century the way America dominated the last century.
"Ultimately, the final judge of the bill is history. Ultimately, as you look at the bill, you have to ask yourself, Will people in the future be trying to repeal it, as we are here today trying to repeal--and hopefully repealing--Glass-Steagall? I think the answer will be no. I think it will be no because we are doing something very different from Glass-Steagall. Glass-Steagall, in the midst of the Great Depression, thought Government was the answer. In this period of economic growth and prosperity, we believe freedom is the answer.
"This is a deregulatory bill. I believe that is going to be the wave of the future. Although this bill will be changed many times, and changed dramatically as we expand freedom and opportunity, I do not believe it will be repealed. It sets the foundation for the future, and that will be the test.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/24/2008 @ 02:40am
"So I am proud to have been part of this. I am proud to have worked with everybody as part of the process. It has been interesting and Government at its best. I think one of the reasons we run for public office is to get a chance to do things such as this. I am glad to have had an opportunity to play a part and urge all of my colleagues to support this dramatic move into the future."
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/24/2008 @ 02:40am
http://banking.senate.gov/conf/floor5.jpg
yea 90, nay 8
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/24/2008 @ 02:43am
one "no vote."
guess who.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/24/2008 @ 02:58am
Based upon prior experience with deregulatory measures, the Treasury Department has estimated that increased competition under the provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act could reduce the cost of financial services by as much as five percent. Considering that American families spend over $350 billion a year on fees and commissions for brokerage, insurance, and banking services, the potential savings could be in excess of $18 billion a year. And that's just for households. American businesses pay about the same amount in fees and charges for financial services, and could expect comparable savings.
Remarks by
John D. Hawke, Jr.
Comptroller of the Currency
Before the
Consumer Federation of America
Washington, D.C.
December 2, 1999
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/24/2008 @ 02:59am
FROM THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
November 12, 1999
Photo-2908
"President Clinton signs historic legislation to modernize the nation's financial services laws which will better enable American companies to compete in the new economy, provide new consumer privacy protections and protect investment in America's communities. See Press Release (12Nov) "
http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/photo2908.htm
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/24/2008 @ 03:01am
It is true that the Glass-Steagall law is no longer appropriate to the economy in which we lived. It worked pretty well for the industrial economy, which was highly organized, much more centralized and much more nationalized than the one in which we operate today. But the world is very different.
Now we have to figure out, well, what are still the individual and family and business equities that are still involved that need some protections. And the long, and often tortured story of this law can be seen as a very stunning specific example of the general challenge that will face lawmakers of both parties, that will face liberals and conservatives, that will face all Americans as we try to make sure that the 21st century economy really works for our country and works for the people who live in it.
This will, first of all, save consumers billions of dollars a year through enhanced competition. It will also protect the rights of consumers.
’’’’’’’
This is a very good day for the United States. Again, I thank all of you for making sure that we have done right by the American people and that we have increased the chances of making the next century an American century. I hope we can continue to focus on the economy and the big questions we will have to deal with revolving around that. I hope we will continue to pay down our debt. I still believe in a global economy. We will maximize the opportunities created by this law if the government is reducing its debt and its claim on available capital. So I hope very much that that will be part of our strategy in the future.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/24/2008 @ 03:10am
But today we prove that we could deal with the large issue facing our country and every other advanced economy in the world. If we keep dealing with it in other contexts, the future of our children will be very bright, indeed.
Thank you very much. I'd like to ask all the members of Congress to come up here while we sign the bill. Thank you. (Applause.)
END 1:45 P.M.
For Immediate Release
Friday, November 12, 1999
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT AT FINANCIAL MODERNIZATION BILL SIGNING
Presidential Hall 1:37 P.M. EST
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/24/2008 @ 03:11am
CREATE TOO-BIG-TO-FAIL INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE SOMEDAY LIKELY TO DRAIN THE PUBLIC TREASURY AS TAXPAYERS BAIL OUT IMPERILED FINANCIAL GIANTS TO PROTECT THE STABILITY OF THE NATION'S BANKING SYSTEM;
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1999/11/fotc10.html
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/24/2008 @ 03:12am
so you would pay a dude to cut your lawn but not pay a dude to cut out your appendix?
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/23/2008 @ 9:57pm |
I pay $93.48 a week for health insurance just for myself. I have a $1000 deductible. Im lucky if my insurance pays 60%. So yeah I would pay a dude to cut my lawn. And I pay the dudes who might cut out my appendix through my overpriced health insurance. But the fact is, the cutting of my lawn is not a life or death situation. I should not have to pay anything for healthcare. And since I am forced to pay health insurance premiums. Im damn sure not to pay enormous co-pays and deductibles. The point is no other industrialized nation requires their citzens or even non-citizens to pay for healthcare above and beyond what they already pay in taxes.
Posted by chaoszen at 09/24/2008 @ 07:21am
When I go to the doctors office they tell me, "You have a $35.00 copay for the office visit". I say "No I don't". They say "Well, we will have to bill you for it", I say "O.K." They bill me and I don't pay it. Funny thing is they have stopped even asking me anymore. And I still get my appointments with no problem.
Wanna know why? Because they want my business for what they can get from the insurance. So it must be enough for them. And it is more than enough for me.
Posted by chaoszen at 09/24/2008 @ 07:30am
Posted by chaoszen at 09/24/2008 @ 07:30am
Ah, who expresses the sense of entitlement better than a 'progressive liberal'?
Posted by pontificus at 09/24/2008 @ 07:42am
Posted by chaoszen at 09/24/2008 @ 07:30am
"Since I believe my survival and physical well being is guaranteed by the constitution, I refuse to pay any medical bills that come my way."
Sucking at the tit of society.
Posted by pontificus at 09/24/2008 @ 07:50am
JFK: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
Today's liberals: "Since I believe my survival and physical well being is guaranteed by the constitution, I refuse to pay any medical bills that come my way."
Ah yes, Democrats have come a long way since JFK.
Posted by pontificus at 09/24/2008 @ 07:52am
Sucking at the tit of society.
Posted by pontificus at 09/24/2008 @ 07:50am
Who is sucking at the tit of society? Maybe AIG or Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the rest of Wallstreet. They are not only sucking at the tit, they are in the process of draining the tit and sucking the lifeblood of the entire country.
I work 50 plus hours a week and pay alot in taxes and other deductions. I take home about 60% of my gross pay. But im not complaining about that. I just feel that the Constitution and any society worth anything provides for the welfare of it's citizens as a right of birth. Healthcare in this country is a right not a privilege. Every other industrialized country in the world provides it's citizens with basic healthcare. If you want to take cheap shots at that go ahead and exercise your ignorance. Free basic healthcare would actually bring down the cost per person compared to private for profit systems. And you get a more productive, healthy and happy society to boot.
With all of us relieved from the stress of worrying about getting sick and losing the farm. A healthy society produces more, makes more money and has more to spend. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. So you just must be a mean spirited curmudgeon, a sociopath or insane. In any case. See a doctor.
Posted by chaoszen at 09/24/2008 @ 08:33am
Posted by chaoszen at 09/24/2008 @ 08:33am
So, you feel society should provide for you, therefore you just refuse to pay any of your own medical bills? You're just a parasite.
Posted by pontificus at 09/24/2008 @ 08:41am
Too bad we are not in a bar and you called me a "parasite". I would drop you where you stood. But people like you are hardly worth the effort.
Posted by chaoszen at 09/24/2008 @ 08:58am
The point is no other industrialized nation requires their citzens or even non-citizens to pay for healthcare above and beyond what they already pay in taxes.
Posted by chaoszen at 09/24/2008 @ 07:21am
actually, here in canada non-residents pay quite a lot for services.
many americans have been coming here, receiving services and leaving without paying.
so much so that many hospitals now guesstimate a number into their yearly budgets.
i suggest you leave out the word "free" from your arguments for taxpayer funded health care. it's just ammo for things like ponti.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/24/2008 @ 09:36am
Posted by chaoszen at 09/24/2008 @ 08:58am
"Too bad we are not in a bar and you called me a "parasite". I would drop you where you stood."
Go fuck yourself. If you don't want to be called a parasite, stop telling people you think it's the world's responsibility to take care of your lazy ass.
Posted by pontificus at 09/24/2008 @ 09:38am
With all of us relieved from the stress of worrying about getting sick and losing the farm. A healthy society produces more, makes more money and has more to spend. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. So you just must be a mean spirited curmudgeon, a sociopath or insane. In any case. See a doctor.
Posted by chaoszen at 09/24/2008 @ 08:33am
Chaos Zen, Don't waster your time arguing with the likes of Ponti, Rio, Liver, JM, MBB and the rest. Not one of them has any constructive ideas about how this country should proceed.
They blog here to try to change the subject matter. They are full of shit and are here only to promote the neoconservative doctrine.
All of us posting here should just not respond to their B.S. After a while, maybe they'll take their crap elsewhere so we can have constructive conversations here.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/24/2008 @ 10:15am
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/24/2008 @ 10:15am
"All of us posting here should just not respond to their B.S. After a while, maybe they'll take their crap elsewhere so we can have constructive conversations here."
No, I have a constructive solution to offer to your problem. You think the rest of the country owes you health care, so you need a transfer of wealth from other people to you. Here, I'll diagram it for you:
Other peoples' money ---> Obama ------> wolfgang, chaoszen
Is that simple enough?
Posted by pontificus at 09/24/2008 @ 10:51am
Other peoples' money ---> George W Bush and Paulsen ------> neocons
Is that simple enough?
P.S. I have health insurance. It ain't cheap, but I have health insurance. You were saying.....
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/24/2008 @ 11:27am
CREATE TOO-BIG-TO-FAIL INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE SOMEDAY LIKELY TO DRAIN THE PUBLIC TREASURY AS TAXPAYERS BAIL OUT IMPERILED FINANCIAL GIANTS TO PROTECT THE STABILITY OF THE NATION'S BANKING SYSTEM;
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1999/11/fotc10.html
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/24/2008 @ 03:12am | ignore this person | warn this person
Sounds like the Soviet Union before the collaspe. Now who won the Cold War again? Commie Mafias and Capitalist Mafias - what a love fest and feast!!
Posted by OneVote at 09/24/2008 @ 11:44am
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/24/2008 @ 11:27am
"P.S. I have health insurance. It ain't cheap, but I have health insurance. You were saying....."
Well, that's great! You're paying for your own healthcare! So, unlike chaoszen, you don't feel that you're owed healthcare because you exist! Congratulations!
Posted by pontificus at 09/24/2008 @ 12:03pm