I read this and did not get the impression it was an apologia pro GOP. Indeed, the author whacks the GOP as bad or worse than he does the Dems.
The real flaw in this piece is that he blames the absence of regulation as the culprit. He writes of the "deregulation of the 70s" as if everyone knows what he's referring to. I don't and it would be nice were he to be specific: what deregulation?
The SEC is clearly not to blame according to this piece even though that was the primary regulatory arm. Whiskey tango foxtrot?
And since it's the "failure of regulation" which has brought all this on, the answer must be more regulation!
And let's resurrect Abraham Lincoln while we're at it. He'll know how to fix this...
There are two ways that a government can fix industries that have gone bankrupt: It can take them over or it can bail them out. -- Christopher Caldwell
Is Mr Caldwell not aware that bankrupt industries are also reorganized through the agency of bankruptcy courts? Had this been done to Citigroup, for example, its stock would be declared worthless, its bondholders would take a 15% haircut and the company would reorganize under new management.
There would be no taxpayer-financed largess of well-heeled bankers, no nationalization of the mortgage industry and no trillion dollar deficits, WHICH IS WHY IT WAS NOT PERMITTED TO OCCUR.
This dog and pony show was orchestrated by the Republican administration of George Bush and enthusiastically embraced by his Democrat successor, "King Hussein". Bail-outs and nationalization are equally advantageous to Republican and Democrat politicians alike.
Caldwell is a Judas goat misleading his readers with spurious analysis. We need a genuine solution to government gone wild, which can best be realized by ending the banking cartel and the Federal Reserve. Not only will this preserve what little value remains to the US dollar, it will permanently cripple entrenched political parties, as well.
Most of this is really more than I can intellectually digest,But in 50 odd years of life I have come to understand one thing, People might in some rare instances TOLERATE policy that will reduce their financial futures but usually they will not SUPPORT it especially financially. So I can only conclude that it is the Banks that control both Parties. And it is as the author points out it is the people that make Millions if not tens of (or hundreds) of millions of dollars a year that controls the banks. And if this is true then the only regulations that will be enacted are those that would keep other investors or groups of investors out of the inner circle of the truly Very Rich. All this to me supports the theories of a New World Order based on Financial Controls and that nearly all, if in fact not All the Developed Countries are already under their control. And that the Governments of these countries are but Puppets that will do as the Puppeteers Command and that the populace will tolerate. Now my Question is what can the American People do to regain their Sovereignty and are they willing to do it. Without doubt many people would reject Any Plan that would upset the Status Quo especially the poor and the rich.
The writer definitely makes 2 indisputable points: The genesis of our current and ongoing "crisis" was in the Klinton years, and Dubya and Co. did nothing to slow its advance.
Do a YT search for "Democrats in their own words" then look at the other vids posted by the same user.
While you're at it, also look for this string (type it all as-is incl. + and "" marks)
"glen beck" +"goldman sachs" +web
The latter shows how many GS folks are in positions of power in the Hussein Regime.
In 1999 The government began requiring Fannie Mae and freddie mac to make loans to people who could not afford them. These loans hit a critical mass in about 2005-2007 when a mild recesion began. Many of these loans were going to default anyway but the recession accelerated it. The accelerated defaults deepened the recession which caused even more defaults ad infinitum. Without the fatal decision to open up loans to many who couldn't afford them the recession would have turned around in 18-24 months as they all do eventually. The reason some of the bailouts were necessary is that every loan was insured by a government mandate which means the government would have had to pay every investor for the losses from those bad loans. It was cheaper and easier to simple bail out the biggest of the investors and insurance companies then it was to pay off every loss. The original bailouts were a good idea and undoubtedly necessary. The rest of the money was wasted and was just pork spent for political reasons.
6 comments:
"Obama’s taunts show a confidence, verging on certitude, that Republicans’ hypocrisy is as deep as his own."
Fortunately for Obama, he's correct in his assessment of his 'opposition'.
I read this and did not get the impression it was an apologia pro GOP. Indeed, the author whacks the GOP as bad or worse than he does the Dems.
The real flaw in this piece is that he blames the absence of regulation as the culprit. He writes of the "deregulation of the 70s" as if everyone knows what he's referring to. I don't and it would be nice were he to be specific: what deregulation?
The SEC is clearly not to blame according to this piece even though that was the primary regulatory arm. Whiskey tango foxtrot?
And since it's the "failure of regulation" which has brought all this on, the answer must be more regulation!
And let's resurrect Abraham Lincoln while we're at it. He'll know how to fix this...
There are two ways that a government can fix industries that have gone bankrupt: It can take them over or it can bail them out. -- Christopher Caldwell
Is Mr Caldwell not aware that bankrupt industries are also reorganized through the agency of bankruptcy courts? Had this been done to Citigroup, for example, its stock would be declared worthless, its bondholders would take a 15% haircut and the company would reorganize under new management.
There would be no taxpayer-financed largess of well-heeled bankers, no nationalization of the mortgage industry and no trillion dollar deficits, WHICH IS WHY IT WAS NOT PERMITTED TO OCCUR.
This dog and pony show was orchestrated by the Republican administration of George Bush and enthusiastically embraced by his Democrat successor, "King Hussein". Bail-outs and nationalization are equally advantageous to Republican and Democrat politicians alike.
Caldwell is a Judas goat misleading his readers with spurious analysis. We need a genuine solution to government gone wild, which can best be realized by ending the banking cartel and the Federal Reserve. Not only will this preserve what little value remains to the US dollar, it will permanently cripple entrenched political parties, as well.
MALTHUS
Most of this is really more than I can intellectually digest,But in 50 odd years of life I have come to understand one thing, People might in some rare instances TOLERATE policy that will reduce their financial futures but usually they will not SUPPORT it especially financially.
So I can only conclude that it is the Banks that control both Parties. And it is as the author points out it is the people that make Millions if not tens of (or hundreds) of millions of dollars a year that controls the banks.
And if this is true then the only regulations that will be enacted are those that would keep other investors or groups of investors out of the inner circle of the truly Very Rich.
All this to me supports the theories of a New World Order based on Financial Controls and that nearly all, if in fact not All the Developed Countries are already under their control. And that the Governments of these countries are but Puppets that will do as the Puppeteers Command and that the populace will tolerate.
Now my Question is what can the American People do to regain their Sovereignty and are they willing to do it. Without doubt many people would reject Any Plan that would upset the Status Quo especially the poor and the rich.
Dennis
III
Texas
The writer definitely makes 2 indisputable points: The genesis of our current and ongoing "crisis" was in the Klinton years, and Dubya and Co. did nothing to slow its advance.
Do a YT search for "Democrats in their own words" then look at the other vids posted by the same user.
While you're at it, also look for this string (type it all as-is incl. + and "" marks)
"glen beck" +"goldman sachs" +web
The latter shows how many GS folks are in positions of power in the Hussein Regime.
"Half-white-male speak with forked tongue..."
DD
In 1999 The government began requiring Fannie Mae and freddie mac to make loans to people who could not afford them. These loans hit a critical mass in about 2005-2007 when a mild recesion began. Many of these loans were going to default anyway but the recession accelerated it. The accelerated defaults deepened the recession which caused even more defaults ad infinitum. Without the fatal decision to open up loans to many who couldn't afford them the recession would have turned around in 18-24 months as they all do eventually. The reason some of the bailouts were necessary is that every loan was insured by a government mandate which means the government would have had to pay every investor for the losses from those bad loans. It was cheaper and easier to simple bail out the biggest of the investors and insurance companies then it was to pay off every loss. The original bailouts were a good idea and undoubtedly necessary. The rest of the money was wasted and was just pork spent for political reasons.
Post a Comment