Open Thread: Nose
by Bradford
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
This entry was posted on Thursday, September 25th, 2008 at 7:59 pm and is filed under Random Stuff. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. The trackback link is: http://telicthoughts.com/open-thread-nose/trackback/
September 26th, 2008 at 1:29 am
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
Do you remember the saying "10,000 by 2000"? It was in reference to predictions that the DOW would breach 10,000 by the year 2000.
Do you remember the year 2000?
Independent thinking people were aware that things were too artificial. The good economic times could not last. It was only a matter of time when things would go bad. We were splitting into two separate economies of rich and poor even more than before. The rich could coast on the pyramid scheme fooling themselves into believing we could "stay the course". After all, we are America, one nation under God, the only superpower. A feeling of divinely-inspired invincibility.
We had a presidential election in 2000. Candidate Bush made it clear his foreign policy position was America first and foremost, the UN and Kyoto treaty be damned.
Remember candidate Bush claiming the budget surplus belonged to the people insisting on a "fair" tax cut? Of course when the economy went sour, the tune changed and the reason behind the tax cut was as a stimulus package.
The reason didn't matter. This is America, one nation under God, the only superpower. All we need to do is hold to our convictions and everything will turn out alright, right?
Do you remember the bankruptcy reform?
The basic argument was that it was morally wrong for deadbeats to get away with declaring bankruptcy time and time again. The problem was that obtaining credit was too easy. So rather than making banks more cautious, the reform poured gas on a flame by encouraging them to make more bad loans.
And, yes, I pointed this out BEFORE the credit crisis hit. It was inevitable.
It was as inevitable as the unsustainability of fighting TWO wars (Afganistan and Iraq) and cutting taxes.
But that didn't matter. This is America, one nation under God, the only superpower. All we need to do is hold to our convictions and everything will turn out alright, right?
Now you ask me what I think the government should do.
I think rather than trying to avoid placing blame, we should loudly yell the identity of the culprits from every rooftop. It is those people who stood by and allowed this to happen, the American public.
Justice would be to have that public suffer the consequences of our actions, and those consequences would be extremely tough. We should suffer in the here and now so our children and their children won't have to bear as great of a burden.
But I know that isn't going to happen especially in an election year. The American public has shown its willingness to sell its soul to politicians who proudly wave the flag, believe in God and promises to cut taxes while spending money, including a $700 billion bailout.
However, I hope congress holds out to repair the damage done in the bankruptcy reform. It is a little silly to take houses away from families. All you will end up with is homeless people and empty houses.
I believe this is the beginning of the end. It will take a long time for the elephant to die. Islam will overtake Christianity in dominance. Christianity is tired and worn out from too many scandals and not enough zealots willing to sacrifice for a principle.
I feel sad for my children and grandchildren.
Sad and guilty.
I should have done more for them.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 26, 2008 @ 1:29 am
September 26th, 2008 at 2:27 am
Cheer up, TP. Renew your faith … in yourself.
Leaving your political points for now, let me comment that your knowledge of Christianity's present is just as bad as your attempts to present its past.
America first, you say? Think independently and look beyond the West at the tired and worn out faith you disparage.
http://www.religion-online.org...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/i...
http://www.cceia.org/resources...
etc.
This is the greatest people movement in the history of the world and it is being ignored by the masses who buy their news from the MSM .
And here's just one site on the lack of Christian sacrifice.
http://www.persecution.com/
Comment by Pez — September 26, 2008 @ 2:27 am
September 26th, 2008 at 2:28 am
Bad links?
Request for moderator help again.
Thanks.
Comment by Pez — September 26, 2008 @ 2:28 am
September 26th, 2008 at 3:03 am
Space.com: Mysterious New 'Dark Flow' Discovered in Space
Can't sleep so was just reading and ran across this. Pretty weird stuff.
Comment by Rob R. — September 26, 2008 @ 3:03 am
September 26th, 2008 at 7:12 am
Except this is untrue TP. The entire public is not to blame for the greed and stupidity of others.
Let those who made the bad loans available take the hit. The world will go on. Will there be a recession if the taxpayers are not soaked with 700 billion they do not have? Perhaps. A recession if we do make the 700 billion available? Very possibly and with a much bigger debt to boot. Oddly enough the source of many of the problems you cite is the government itself or more specifically some enabling legislation leading to the problems we now have. Yet who is it that too many turn to for a rescue? That very same government! Worse yet this is being done at the behest of an administration dubbed untrustworthy and worse by the very people eager to put up 700 billion of other people's money for a non-guaranteed salvage of the economy. Let those who created the mess take the consequences for their actions. Will some people be homeless and should we help them out? Yes, but the price tag for that will be far less than the 700 billion corporate bail out.
Comment by Bradford — September 26, 2008 @ 7:12 am
September 26th, 2008 at 7:43 am
Bradford:
I guess that's what passes for Intelligent Economics. Charity for the poor. No, the 700 billion (where did that magic number come from anyway?) is necessary to restore some trust and to allow businesses to borrow money for investments that will create jobs. In return for the 700 billion, taxpayers should get some ownership of the financial institutions they bail out. That way, when the banks get back on their feet and start making a profit again, the taxpayer profits too.
Comment by Raevmo — September 26, 2008 @ 7:43 am
September 26th, 2008 at 7:57 am
Exactly. The poor being the American public who do not need to be financially raped by wealthy politicians.
Drink the cool aid.
More empty promises. The taxpayers are getting ownwership of weak and flawed companies that should go out of business. The ownership propaganda is a con. Do I want part ownership of bankrupt, corrupt corporations or do I wish to decide where to invest my own money? I opt for the latter and hopefully there are enough Americans around who are still capable of independent thinking. There are plenty of banks around to move into the vacuum. They are stronger and better managed than the culprits with their hands out. If this is all about a stalking horse for socialism then send the congressmen to eastern Europe where they can learn first hand how that system fails to work out. If it is about following Bush's lead then I pity you.
Comment by Bradford — September 26, 2008 @ 7:57 am
September 26th, 2008 at 8:28 am
Bradford:
The same people who reelected the worst president in history? Good luck with that.
That's horse hockey. That might work in the long run, but short-term measures are needed to inject cash into the system to prevent further disaster.
Ah yes, a communist ploy to take over America. Can you see the black helicopters already? By the way, Eastern Europe is no run by the commies.
I wouldn't buy a glass of water from Bush if I were on the brink of dying from thirst.
Comment by Raevmo — September 26, 2008 @ 8:28 am
September 26th, 2008 at 8:31 am
Headline: Hurricane hits Wall Street. Government springs into action rushing golden parachutes to the scene, and dropping bundles of cash from black helicopters.
Kanye West: Don't let anyone say that George Bush doesn't care about rich white people.
Comment by Zachriel — September 26, 2008 @ 8:31 am
September 26th, 2008 at 8:34 am
Gotta stop listening to Bush's Treasury Secretary. Bush is after all "the worst president in history" by your own account. So now you want to make him the expert prognosticator on what will and will not happen to the economy?
But you buy his 700 billion scheme hook, line and sinker. Maybe that's because you don't have to pay taxes here.
Comment by Bradford — September 26, 2008 @ 8:34 am
September 26th, 2008 at 8:36 am
And the Bush bashers are so eager to help him out on this. That includes biracial Obama.
Comment by Bradford — September 26, 2008 @ 8:36 am
September 26th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Bradford:
You're not paying attention or you are obfuscating. I know that Paulson walked away from GS $500 million richer while multiplying GS' debt and from what I wrote above it is obvious that I reject his devious plan to spend 700 billion without any oversight and equity for the taxpayer so he can bail out his Wall St buddies. But I believe he is right that something needs to be done, and so do plenty of liberal economists (you know, the dismal scientists).
Have you lost your trust in The Supreme Leader, the compassionate conservative that you helped get elected (I'm assuming that you did, which seems a safe bet, but correct me if I'm wrong)? Perhaps you haven't noticed that the US economy and the rest of the globe's economy are not independent entities, so I do have a stake in the economic fate of your country, like it or not.
Comment by Raevmo — September 26, 2008 @ 8:55 am
September 26th, 2008 at 9:02 am
I don't think you get how this works, Bradford.
Is there a good reason you included the term "biracial"?
Look. I understand why Americans are angry and upset. However, millions of Americans voted for Bush, even reelecting him. You can blame Gore and Kerry for not providing a more compelling alternative, but frankly, the American people share much of the blame for the problems in their country.
Officially sanctioned torture. Loss of transparency. Katrina. Aunt Millie. Fractured alliances. Two unending wars. Abu Ghraib. $700 billion for rich people. For us or against us.
Comment by Zachriel — September 26, 2008 @ 9:02 am
September 26th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Raevmo:
You mean the government needs to become a business owner. But that's a failed strategy. Governments are notoriously inefficient. Why make a problem worse?
Comment by Bradford — September 26, 2008 @ 10:08 am
September 26th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Bradford:
You and I finally agree on something political! If anyone cared what I have to say, I'd tell 'em NO. The trillion or so they want before Bush leaves office is just paper the Fed plans to print. That makes everyone's money worth less, and solves none of the real problems with their crazy economic model (which is really a ponzi scheme). Ponzi schemes must fail, let it fail.
However, we have already purchased Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, we don't have to let families go homeless. We - as the receivers - can re-write the mortgages to reflect actual worth, at reasonable and fixed interest. Those who still have jobs can pay, they have to pay anyway even if they're renting. Nobody else wants their home and the criminal looting of their pockets and bank accounts was all imaginary money anyway.
A foreclosure moratorium should be called right now, however, to allow the OMB, CBO and FBI to finish their audits and criminal investigations launched into the 'creative' [think: Enron] accounting practices. Pouring more money into a criminal enterprise is dumb. Fannie, Freddie and AIG are all under criminal investigation, the rest of Wall Street should be investigated too. And a lot of rich white guys need to go to prison.
P.S. Since you mentioned a hurricane, here's a list of our local ABC affiliate's Top Stories for September 25, 2008. We have had no fuel for two full weeks, schools and businesses are shut down, roads are filling up with abandoned cars.
• Officials: Gas Promised to WNC Will Arrive (but nobody knows when)
• Impact on Local Farmers
• Gas Crunch and the Business Impact
• Gas Crisis 911 Calls
• Gas Shortage Continues
• More Gas Shipments Arrive in Mountains
• Shuler Calls for Gas Investigation
• Asheville Area Gasoline Situation
Comment by Joy — September 26, 2008 @ 10:11 am
September 26th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Bradford: There are plenty of banks around to move into the vacuum. They are stronger and better managed than the culprits with their hands out.
I know exactly why people think they can run economies and people's lives through a trick pony called the federal government while using other people's money. If the concern were simply the poor a price tag of a miniscule percentage of the 700 billion would address the disposed mortage payers. No. This is a panic engendered by some very clever but unscrupulous men of means eagerly latched onto by leftist ideologues who will spin the economy no matter what direction it heads in. If the disaster scenarios do not pan out mum will be the word except for an occassional remark directed at Bush who is responsible for all that goes wrong after all. Can't be Congress.
Bradford: That includes biracial Obama.
Yes. You were the one who wrote this:
Yet race does not seem to be a relevant factor in ferreting out who wants to help out rich white businessmen. BTW, Obama's parents are of mixed racial backgrounds making biracial the more exact description and African-American the political tag.
Comment by Bradford — September 26, 2008 @ 10:21 am
September 26th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Joy:
Now I know I'm right.
Observe a logically consistent Bush critic Raevmo and Zachriel.
Comment by Bradford — September 26, 2008 @ 10:26 am
September 26th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Bradford:
You should try a nuanced view for a change. Sticking to simpleminded dogmas doesn't flatter you. Government-run operations are not necessarily more inefficient. Indeed some essential services are more efficiently run by the government. Take a look at this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08...
Private tax collectors keeping >20 cents on the dollar while it would cost the IRS only 3 cents on the dollar. Which option do you think the Bush government favored?
Or how about outsourcing the war in Iraq to private companies? Is that more efficient?
Social security? Health care?
Did you ever try to make a train trip in the UK? You should compare it to the modern TGV network in France. Privatization can be quite destructive because of greedy CEO's who don't give a damn about the quality of their product. Remember the Enron-engineered rolling blackouts in California?
I could go on.
In this particular case the government would become co-owner of financial companies in exchange for cash to keep the economy "well-oiled". After a while the government would sell the shares again. Seems like the right thing to do at the moment, but of course I could be wrong.
Comment by Raevmo — September 26, 2008 @ 10:54 am
September 26th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Joy:
That's nonsense. The cash would be borrowed from abroad. You better hope the foreign lenders don't give up yet on the US, or it's down the drain with the US economy. Because then the government would really be forced to start printing more cash.
Comment by Raevmo — September 26, 2008 @ 11:01 am
September 26th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Do you have a detailed comparative analysis?
Very inefficiently run by the government. If a young person invested deducted social security money in a conservative private investment he or she would have much greater returns in old age.
Noone is claiming that greed does not corrupt private industry as well as government officials. The government has a responsibility to police white collar criminals and ought to do a better job of it.
Incidentally, the US federal government is a non-profit institution whose departments generally incur overhead costs of around 40%. IOW, for every 100 dollars alloted to a social program intended to benefit the poor only sixty dollars reach them. The remainder is consumed by administrative costs. If a private charity were run this badly its governing board would be in danger of being criminally charged. Private non-profit groups keep their overhead under 20% and often closer to 10%. Government funded jobs performed by private firms also do less well than straight transactions between two private companies. The reason for this lies in the nature of the contract process.
Comment by Bradford — September 26, 2008 @ 11:10 am
September 26th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Raevmo:
Foreigners put their money where there is the greatest expectation of return. That would not be in Europe's stagnating economies.
Comment by Bradford — September 26, 2008 @ 11:14 am
September 26th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Raevmo:
Yes, they'll sell T-bills to China, if China will buy them. But tacking on another few trillion (don't be fooled - this current proposal does nothing to salvage the actual markets, those bundled MBS's are overvalued to well above the entire world's GDP, and our humble houses were never worth that much) to the debt simply sentences the next 3-4 generations to indentured servitude.
Meanwhile, because they've printed more debt IOUs, the value of every dollar goes down accordingly. Last week the Money Markets were going under $1 a 'share' - that's savings, if a dollar saved isn't worth a dollar, we'd be better off stuffing mattresses.
They wanted "free and unfettered" markets - IOW, no regulation. They got 'em, now they can pay the piper. Yes, that means Great Depression II here, but again don't be fooled - the greedy will find ways to extend their greed. They're rather good at it, this is just the end of one ponzi scheme. They'll think of another one.
If we accept the consequences now it will be hard on us, but our children and grandchildren will be much better off. I'm willing to do that just to see the old guard become as poor as me (or go to prison, almost as good). End our wars of aggression and we won't be throwing away $10 billion a month. Re-invest in our own infrastructure, re-establish our own means of production and energy independence by investing here at home. No nation indebted to itself is in any danger of collapse [J.K.Galbraith]. Let the rest of the world clean up their own messes.
Millions of people here who actually live in the real estate being foreclosed are simply staying put because the banks can't do anything with the properties - and don't hold the notes anymore anyway. They're "squatting" in their own homes, and being allowed to do so because the government now owns 'em, not the banks.
Things have to get very bad before there is reason enough to change. That's just the way of things. Gas has to go over $5 a gallon before people demand better mileage vehicles [GM, et al. are failing, you know]. It has to be unavailable at any price before people demand alternatives ['Heckuva job, Skeletor!']. Our economy must crash [tens of millions lose their homes and jobs] before people demand that we alter the system to something that works for everyone instead of just the greedy few.
But fear not. They'll allot the trillion now, 3 or 4 more come January. They're too greedy not to. And this already proven disastrous ponzi scheme will keep on going, until next time it fails at the top. Then we'll bail it out again. Some things, unfortunately, never change.
Comment by Joy — September 26, 2008 @ 12:12 pm
September 26th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
If things are so bad that we have to spend 700 million, why give it to bankers? Why not spend it on intrastructure and health care, providing employment for millions instead of just relief for a few bankers? (and bring the troops home form Iraq and Afghanistan)
Comment by Bert — September 26, 2008 @ 12:30 pm
September 26th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Bert, it's $700 BILLION. But that's just a "sufficiently high number" off the top of Paulson's ex-CEO of Goldman-Sachs pointy head. It won't touch MBS's [Mortgage Backed Securities], and we already bought Fannie and Freddie, so they're no longer a (domestic) issue. For anybody but the greedheads who had to take a loss on 'em. Tough titty, they already lost.
But yeah, a bottom-up solution is preferable to this "bail out the top" garbage. Bailing them out doesn't teach 'em anything. If you want a "Free Market," it's got to be free to fail. The problem right now is that they demand their bailout RIGHT NOW and aren't shy of throwing hissy-fits if we don't give in. As Paul Krugman said in his latest op-ed, Where are the Grown-Ups? Only to conclude…
They want it now because they're no longer going to be in charge come November 5th - Change will have happened. Halloween stuff is up at the stores, Guy Fawkes masks* are readily available… §;o)
[* "V" for Vendetta reference]
Comment by Joy — September 26, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
September 26th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
For what it's worth, the majority of americans voted for Gore. Bush should have never even had a chance for a second term… even then he only one by ~2.5%. Even then, not to go all conspiracy theorist on ya, there were those issues with the Diebold voting machines. Also, let us not forget about issues like what happened to those 350, 000 voters in ohio. Etc., etc., etc., etc.!
Just sayin'
PS,
I did not know you weren't American, Zachriel. Where do you live, if you don't mind?
Comment by Rob R. — September 26, 2008 @ 1:40 pm
September 26th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Spam filter? Only had two links, one from wikipedia and the other from rollingstone.com.
Help, please. Thanks.
Comment by Rob R. — September 26, 2008 @ 1:42 pm
September 26th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
LOL!!! Well, that debate at Ol' Miss that McCain said he had to suspend his campaign to get out of has been held and is now officially over. McCain's campaign is airing an ad on television right now that exclaims…
…and another ad featuring a quote from McCain campaign manager Rick Davis declaring: "McCain won the debate - hands down."
Whoa. THAT is the solution to all our current troubles! John McCain has invented time travel!
Watta
Comment by Joy — September 26, 2008 @ 1:52 pm
September 26th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
It gets better; they're looking for a bail-out too!
Good times.
Comment by Rob R. — September 26, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
September 26th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Rob R.:
Yeah. Diebold got booted out of NC on its proverbial ass after throwing our state races into utter turmoil. Diebold works by "flipping" ballots, but Democrats here generally vote straight, while Republicans generally split their tickets (we like Dem state leadership). Flipping those straight Dem ballots threw three races for state offices into double and triple overtime, one ended up a flat tie, the Republican was a joke not predicted to take 20% of the vote. Everyone was so disgusted that Diebold was told to pack up its rigged machines and head straight out of Dodge.
My county is sticking with printed paper ballots, not even those glorified Etch-a-Sketches. If we're voting, we can read the names and fill in the circle (we get black Sharpies for that). No hanging chads, no 'lost' votes, no ballot-flips. They can be counted and re-counted any number of times, and the voter's intent is perfectly clear.
Oh… I knew GM, et al. were going down back when I was working for Consumer Guide. They've been crippled by their union obligations, but much more so by their stubborn refusal to make those high-mileage, pollution-minimal cars Toyota and Honda make instead (and get the money for). More bad business decisions, Free Market Capitalism says "tough titty, you lose."
Now, we could just nationalize everything. But I don't think that'll help us any. Deal is, the 21st century requires a new economic model. All these stupid "super-trade treaties" try to play to the changing world markets dynamic, but only serve to do harm at home by sending the nation's real wealth - our means of production and our skilled workforce jobs - to other countries. That leaves… what? Wall Street's crazy greedheads and the rest of us in menial, low-paying jobs that "service" the rich. The wealth has all been transferred, we can't afford to buy stuff anymore. Now they want US (and our children, and our grandchildren, and our great-grandchildren) to bail THEM out?!
Ha! Tax the rich, you fools! We're broke. O-U-T of gas, our schools, businesses, city buses and First Responder services are shut down. Who knows if there will be jobs to go back to when we finally get some gas? We can't help Wall Street, though we can help ourselves and each other.
Comment by Joy — September 26, 2008 @ 2:49 pm
September 26th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
The Americans have blown the motor in their economic engine. You can yell at the mechanic, but the engine's still blown.
Administrative costs of social security are only 0.6% of benefits.
That's nice. But Social Security doesn't pay for your retirement, but for your parents' retirement. It's pay as you go. Of course, the U.S. could just abandon their obligation to the elderly and put the money into an investment account at Lehman Bros.
It's a terrible strategy. But hey, the U.S. over throttled the engine and don't have any money saved.
Europe has its own share of problems, but the Euro is quite strong of late, nor is the EU economy stagnant.
Comment by Zachriel — September 26, 2008 @ 3:11 pm
September 26th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
I'm not simply referring to the costs of administering funds. SS requires government employees who need to be paid, pensioned and housed (while working). Government workers are paid at a higher rate than their private employee counterparts and their pensions are overly generous. That condition is slowly driving the economy of the USA's most populous state into the ground as our governor refuses to cut costs and opts for ever increasing taxes instead. Social Security does offer the promise to pay for our retirement, as well as parents' retirement.
If the Dem leaders and Bush get their way the US could end up doing both. Our money is not a play thing to be offered to failing businesses wily nily. The US economy outgrows European economies long term. If the US needs to emulate anyone it is the growing Asian economies.
The conventional GDP numbers should be replaced with Private Sector GDP. Governments do not create wealth. If they are properly functioning, they provide a strong national defense, a court system, police and fire services, good schools, and so on. The role of government is primarily to protect and preserve the wealth that our private free- enterprise system creates. It is statistical malpractice to report increases in government spending as an increase in economic well-being. That is particularly true now that our government spends well over $3 trillion a year—more than the government spent in real terms from 1787–1930 combined.
The fact that our government sector is now larger than our entire manufacturing sector is evidence that government growth is now parasitic. Government growth doesn’t enhance our private sector markets—it displaces them. When we put that tape measure around the waist of our economy, we ought to exclude government, or we will mistake fat for muscle. Governments can only grow at someone else’s expense, and increasingly that someone is all of America’s hardworking taxpayers.
Comment by Bradford — September 26, 2008 @ 3:35 pm
September 26th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Yes, I think I heard something about that.
Hubris. The belief that a bare majority gave them the power to ignore alternative opinions and to create their own reality. I argued extensively on other forums that they were never conservatives.
Jovial, by Jove.
—
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
Member AMF, Angelic Motive Force
Pushing planets on celestial spheres — one epoch at a time.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
Comment by Zachriel — September 26, 2008 @ 3:38 pm
September 26th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Yes. Paying the workers is included in the administrative costs. You claimed that it was inefficiently run, yet it runs at 99.4% efficiency.
I think the engine's blown. You need a new one. Rather a shame. Why did you let them race the engine like that? (Did you vote for them?)
Comment by Zachriel — September 26, 2008 @ 4:11 pm
September 26th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Admin costs of mutual funds I have owned have a technical meaning that differs from the costs of doing business found on corporate tax forms. The main point of SS benefits is their small return on investment which is the only thing that matters to recipients in the end. Most workers begin employment in their teenage years and do not retire until 65 (possibly later than this in the future). They could get much greater returns on money by investing in stocks and bonds and having the federal government both strictly regulate and insure the investments under rules intended for retirees. Instead we face much smaller returns if any at all. The SS trust fund has already borrowed from the federal treasury to the tune of billions. As the link in the previous post indicates the government is a parasite, not a producer of wealth.
Comment by Bradford — September 26, 2008 @ 4:23 pm
September 26th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Bradford:
Hahaha! Oh, that's pretty rich. Did you know that WaMu CEO Alan Fishman - who had been on the job less than two weeks - walked away from the FDIC seizure wreckage with somewhere between seven and twenty million dollars? His predecessor Kerry Killinger who led the "Mad Acquisition Spree" that got WaMu into trouble got fired and still managed to walk away with an $18 million golden parachute.
Maybe the wisest move at this point would be to severely dock those private pay packages and make these people work for a living on, say, your average government workers' pay. They broke it, but we're buying it. Since we're in charge now we get to set the pay grades.
Your anti-government views are fairly popular, but they don't reflect reality and no longer apply to the world as it is. Government just nationalized the mortgage industry, the re-insurance industry, and about 90% of all the savings in the country. Why? Because all these things - housing (real property), corporate insurance (and all their managed mutual funds) and banking (insured deposits) - are "too big to fail." Wait… no, they're too IMPORTANT (to real people) to fail. Oh… and car manufacturing. Did I mention car manufacturing? Rob says they want a bailout too.
Wall Street wants a bailout. Well, we can't afford it, we've got two mercenary wars going on right now, thanks, are suffering a massive mortgage meltdown that's making us homeless, and our jobs are disappearing fast. They want a blank check, no oversight and no judicial review. And no, that's not a joke (despite sounding a lot like one). My answer? No.
Wall Street has played fast and loose with Monopoly money without any adults to make sure they're not cheating or hurting anyone. Now the bank's busted, the play money is [surprise!] revealed to be play money - worthless paper.
I say "Welcome to real life, Monopoly guys!" Sign-in for day-labor is by the door. No smoking inside the building, don't ding the passers-by for quarters, no alcohol in the parking lot and don't sleep on the sidewalk.
Comment by Joy — September 26, 2008 @ 4:47 pm
September 26th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
You can't invest money you haven't got. You keep thinking you can invest your Social Security payments. The vast majority of that money goes to pay for the previous generation's retirement.
Not even close. The federal treasury has borrowed from Social Security (which currently has a surplus due to the generational bulge). And *not* the other way around. The United States is not even close to a fiscally responsible balance of accounts.
Comment by Zachriel — September 26, 2008 @ 5:02 pm
September 26th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Bradford:
Where do you come up with this stuff, Bradford? This is backwards. From March 27th '08 CNNMoney (release of the Social Security trustees' annual report) -
All that "faith and trust" stuff - unless the government can repay the money it 'borrowed' over the years, there won't be enough to pay retirees. So yeah, these guys are no more responsible than Bear-Sterns or WaMu or Fannie Mae or AIG. Those T-bills may no longer be worth much either. Japan and China are going to be a bit upset, but not as upset as We the People will be.
Comment by Joy — September 26, 2008 @ 5:16 pm
September 26th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
I'm aware of these disgraceful practices as well as the millions of Americans who are part of a huge, diverse economy. Few workers in the private sector have the benefit packages that municipal and state employees in New Jersey routinely enjoy. Most Jerseyans would like to retire at age 50 or 55 with good pensions but competitive enterprises, unable to access tax dollars, are usually unable to match the generosity of government. The remedy for the fiscal crisis in this state is not ever increasing taxes.
Comment by Bradford — September 26, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
September 26th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
You're right about the money flow from SS to treasury. But are you claiming the SSA is not facing a major crisis in the near future? Americans and policy makers have good reason to be concerned about the SSA's capacity to fund the retirement of baby boomers. Is the SAA a centerpiece representing the hope of what government can do for you? Is that the politics of hope baby boomers need to rely on?
In short, the Social Security trust fund is really only an accounting mechanism. The trust fund shows how much the government has borrowed from Social Security, but it does not provide any way to finance future benefits. The money to repay the IOUs will have to come from taxes that are being used today to pay for other government programs. For that reason, the most important date for Social Security is 2018, when taxpayers must begin to repay the IOUs, not 2042, when the trust fund is exhausted.
Conclusion. Social Security's financial crisis will begin far sooner than many politicians claim. In less than three years, the first baby boomer will reach retirement age. Once that happens, Social Security (and Medicare) will be on a slippery slope toward insolvency. While Social Security can continue to use its tax receipts to pay full retirement benefits until 2018, Congress cannot wait that long to act. Misleading the public into believing that Social Security is secure until 2042 or beyond will only make the impending crisis more difficult to avoid.
Comment by Bradford — September 26, 2008 @ 5:30 pm
September 26th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Zachriel:
And that's exactly the problem. You are reinforcing the legitimate concern that there is no viable SSA funding available for future generations without major reforms of the system.
Comment by Bradford — September 26, 2008 @ 5:33 pm
September 26th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Bradford, it's amazing how you keep parroting right-wing propaganda that doesn't survive the slightest scrutiny. I wonder if you keep a straight face when you type this kind of stuff:
A lot of basic science is funded by the government, science that ultimately creates enormous wealth, science that would not be funded by private enterprise because of the uncertainties involved.
Comment by Raevmo — September 26, 2008 @ 5:34 pm
September 26th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
You are quite correct. The Great Depression would have lasted only a couple of years had it not been for the Fed trying to save the system with more infusions of easy credit, which caused the problem to begin with. Better to get the heroin addict off quickly, then to drag it out over a decade or more.
Comment by kornbelt888 — September 26, 2008 @ 5:37 pm
September 26th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
The government is a parasite, not a producer of wealth
You're right about the research funding. And the other trillion or so budgetary dollars is contributed to the government by the American people who do the producing of goods and services. Parasitic. Sounds like an apt analogy. BTW, one reason the private sector might be short of research capital has something to do with the enormous amount of money the government sucks out of the economy every year.
Comment by Bradford — September 26, 2008 @ 5:43 pm
September 26th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
kornbelt888:
Well said kornbelt.
Comment by Bradford — September 26, 2008 @ 5:44 pm
September 26th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Raevmo, here's an American Politics 101 lesson for you. The Democrats control both houses of congress and Bush has indicated his desire to get the bailout package passed. No veto worries. Yet the Dems claim the package is held up by the Republican minority.
How effective do you think this effort at manipulation is?
Comment by Bradford — September 26, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
September 26th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Bradford:
Mutualistic seems a more apt analogy.
Comment by Raevmo — September 26, 2008 @ 6:12 pm
September 26th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Bradford:
The Dems want bipartisan support to cover their asses when passing a package that is not exactly popular. What did you expect?
Comment by Raevmo — September 26, 2008 @ 6:48 pm
September 26th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
kornbelt:
I re-read William Greider's ample tome Secrets of the Temple again just a couple of months ago. It's a short history of the Fed and the economic theory underpinning our version of capitalism (Keynesian), what went wrong on Jimmy Carter's watch, and the transition enabled by that situation to something else going by the vague name of "Trickle-Down" or "Voodoo" economics. It's mostly the story of Paul Volker and his overseeing of that transition. To what has been, up until just these last few weeks when so much of the economic base was nationalized (more to come… did you see what happened to Wachovia today?), when the whole ponzi scheme came crashing down.
We have to save the people's real property. We have to make good on the insurance policy on the people's real savings. We must protect the people's health and retirement contract. But with the FBI already hot on the trail of the crooks and creeps, there's no reason at all that we have to bail out the speculative markets or their fat privateers. They gambled and lost. Their losses can stay lost. If they're smart they can go play market speculation footsies in Singapore or Dubai. They don't get a dime from me, and should be barred from the government trough.
It was always Voodoo. Voodoo's all about illusions. Illusions have no real value unless everybody believes in them. We have stopped believing.
Comment by Joy — September 26, 2008 @ 7:37 pm
September 26th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
I expect more from some of the most privilaged people on this planet. Show some character. Have some balls. If the bailout package is truly as urgent as we are told then get the job done because it is the right thing to do. If the economy will fail without it then do it without the Republicans and take sole credit for saving the economy. You're right about them covering their backsides but I also suspect the architects of the plan are not as confident in it as their public statements indicate. If it fails they want to spread the blame around.
One more thing. Chris Dodd, a Democratic Senator from Connecticutt, was given the responsibility of crafting the details of the plan. Why is that significant? Because he, more than any of the 99 other senators, received the largest amount of contributions from the corporations he now wishes to bail out. There is something fundamentally wrong and corrupt with having such a senator leading the charge to provide such corporations with public money. Corporate recipients of aid ought to be barred from further lobbying. The whole mess is completely disgusting.
Comment by Bradford — September 26, 2008 @ 8:25 pm
September 26th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Bradford:
Yes, of course. This close to the elections, the Dems cannot afford to take the risk of being seen as responsible for a major blunder. I wouldn't put it past the Republicans at all to actually help engineer a disaster if the Dems would unilaterally go ahead.
I think the debate is starting now.
Comment by Raevmo — September 26, 2008 @ 8:59 pm
September 27th, 2008 at 8:01 am
It's a pay as you go system (with a bit of a short-term surplus). What part of that don't you understand?
As to the Americans spending the short-term Social Security surplus, well, good luck with that. I assume you voted for the government that brought you:
Officially sanctioned torture. Loss of transparency. Katrina. Aunt Millie. Fractured alliances. Two unending wars. Abu Ghraib. $700 billion bailout for Fat Cats. For us or against us. Huge deficits. Dependency on foreign sources of energy often controlled by unfriendly, non-democratic and inherently unstable governments. Dependency on foreign sources of cash often controlled by communist regimes.
Oh, and
Raiding of the Social Security Trust Fund to help fund tax cuts for high income Americans in a time of national emergency.
I do understand your anger and confusion, but it seems grossly misplaced.
Comment by Zachriel — September 27, 2008 @ 8:01 am
September 27th, 2008 at 8:21 am
Unlike in some parliamentary systems, party discipline is very lax in the American system. Someone has to clean up the mess created by the Bush Administration and by Republican theories of governance. While distasteful, most Democrats (and not a few Republicans) will vote responsibly. Some Democrats (and many Republicans) can't or won't do so because of passionate opposition from their constituencies. In the case of Democrats, these are people who largely opposed the Bush policies. This will prevent a majority without significant Republican support.
Bradford expresses the problem quite eloquently. The very attitude he displays towards governance leads to the very problems he rails against.
Comment by Zachriel — September 27, 2008 @ 8:21 am
September 27th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Have you taken a look at the population age demographics? What gives you the faith to believe that as a baby boomers draw on funds in the SS system the deductions of a smaller base of workers will be enough to support them without massive SS tax increases?
Comment by Bradford — September 27, 2008 @ 10:25 am
September 27th, 2008 at 10:40 am
The Dems claim a massive corporate bailout is needed for the good of the country but will not vote for one without significant Republican support? What a con! Either they actually believe it is needed and patriotic Dems will vote their consciouses or they are political animals who are acting in ideological mode and want Republican suport for political purposes. The fact that they appoint Dodd as the principle architect of the legislation and Dodd has been the primary beneficiary of funding from these badly run corporations does not bode well for the integrity of their intentions.
The easy money mentality was itself the result of government regulations and fiscal policies. The lobbying system is so out of hand that congressmen and women routinely arrange for members of their own families to work as highly paid lobbyists for the very corporations they must regulate by the laws they enact. Must be nice to be able to land one's son a six figure no show job to lobby a sympathetic mom or dad. Not so nice for the American people though. These problems are not the consequence of my attitude. They result from greed and lust for power by those who are looking out for themselves instead of their constituents.
Comment by Bradford — September 27, 2008 @ 10:40 am
September 27th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Bradford:
Well, there are reasonable solutions to the problem of government seizing the trust fund to pay for pork (and wars, etc.). These will have to be properly debated at some point, no doubt. They'll have strong supporters and detractors. That's how politics works.
1. Boomers are retiring now, will be retiring steadily for the next decade (I'm one of 'em). We have paid a higher portion of SS payroll taxes than the rich for the whole of our working lives. No, I do NOT mind that it went to support my parents' retirement. No, I do NOT mind that my daughter's SS contributions will come to me. I am favorable to the idea of Boomers demanding payment from the Treasury for what they "borrowed" of our retirement funds over the years. SS isn't broke, the government is full of thieves. If the Fed can print a trillion dollars to bail out Wall Street, it can print a trillion dollars to pay for my generation's retirement.
2. We could raise the cap on SS payroll taxes to $250,000. We pay those taxes on 100% of our income, so can the well-to-do.
3. We can means-test at retirement. If you retire with so much wealth that your income is still $250,000 or more, you do not need Social Security to keep you from starving or going homeless. If you've accumulated that much wealth, you have no doubt benefitted from the government's "creative bookkeeping" and constant raiding of the trust fund over these many years - you got yours. SS was always meant to pension the working class's retirement, the rich never needed it.
4. Tax the capital class. You know, those who benefitted from Bush's tax cuts. Reverse those, go back to taxing capital gains and inheritance over $3 million, maybe charge the Wall Street speculators and day-traders 25¢ per trade to pay back the bailout, earmark it for SS shortfall.
Those aren't "massive" increases. They affect only the top less-than 10% of citizens, the wealthiest among us. Oh… and go ahead and re-institute graduated income taxes, where those who have become richest on the largesse of our society pay their fair share back to our society.
Comment by Joy — September 27, 2008 @ 11:39 am
September 27th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Good suggestions Joy. I would also increase the minimal tax base for individuals collecting SS to more than $25,000. and for joint returns up it from $32,000. to a more realistic income level.
Comment by Bradford — September 27, 2008 @ 12:08 pm
September 27th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
The raiding of the Trust Fund has an interesting history. Take a look at the facts from the Government Accounting Office:
Federal Debt; Answers to Frequently Asked Questions.
(This is as of 2003; I was unable to find a later report.) Look in particular at the chart at the top of page 27 of the pdf (numbered page 22 of the document). Several features stand out:
- Beginning in the early 1980s (the Reagan Era), the Social Security Trust Fund began to run a significant surplus, which was used to mask the actual deficit then and in every year but one since then;
- Note that the Trust Fund receipts began to fall after 1989, but then rose again in the mid 90s as the US Congress enacted legislation to "save Social Security". Or perhaps to save the free ride we were getting from using the Trust Fund surplus to mask the true deficit;
- In spite of this profligacy, the chart shows that the PAYGO discipline of the 1990s (begun under George Bush, Sr. and continued under Clinton) succeeded in wiping out deficit spending, resulting in four straight surpluses including an 'on the books' surplus in 2000, when the Trust Fund actually had to turn to the street to buy T-bills; the Treasury had no need to issue paper that year;
- After 2000, the current administration's tax cuts were enacted to 'give the taxpayers back their money' and federal debt careened back out of control. We started a couple of wars we didn't want to pay for. We cut taxes again, and then again. PAYGO discipline went out the window.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or a Chinese banker) to realize the THIS CANNOT GO ON. The current year's deficit stands at $500B (helped along by this summer's tax rebate; giving back the taxpayers 'their money' again) and now we face a trillion dollar bailout, the continued cost of two wars, and the looming unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare.
And still the American people vote for bread and circuses.
We don't want governance. We want bread and circuses.
I am not a believer, but I cannot think of a more compelling evidence for the hand of Divine Providence in the affairs of men then People Getting What They So Richly Deserve. I only wish I could admire the drama from a safer remove. And mercy for the innocents, of course; but one must be realistic.
Apologies for such a long first post from a long-time lurker.
Comment by Tom MH — September 27, 2008 @ 12:28 pm
September 27th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Bradford:
I didn't think of that, but watching the bottom line for those who don't have much and can't earn any more should definitely be an annual evaluation and adjusted accordingly. Also to account for necessary outlays from that fixed income for Medicare co-pays and supplemental insurance - retirees are not the healthiest segment of the population. I do NOT want to spend my dying-time eating dog food. I'm a vegetarian!
After a lifetime of raising my own and other people's children, this will be the first year that we have zero dependent deductions. Even though those dependents are still here and still dependent. Figure we might be unpleasantly surprised by our tax bill this year despite barely getting from paycheck to paycheck and keeping up with mortgage and utilities. Have to keep working through age 68 anyway, just to get our mortgage paid off. Heck, be honest. We'll never stop working. We'll just probably stop getting paid…
My sister says if I'll just take her 'frustrating' 5-year old daughter we'll still get the deduction. I've informed her that I'm done raising other people's kids. My goal in life is to dance at my great-grandwhatever's wedding. Beyond that I have no ambitions… §;o)
Comment by Joy — September 27, 2008 @ 1:05 pm
September 27th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
joy:
Hard to believe no one ever thought of this!!! But why stop at 250,000?
Comment by Bert — September 27, 2008 @ 3:58 pm
September 27th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
If the U.S. funded its general budget instead of relying on the Social Security surplus, then Social Security would be solvent until 2042, perhaps longer. Even then, they could pay 80% of benefits in perpetuity. The problem is the U.S. doesn't properly fund its general budget, much less save for a rainy day.
The United States paid $430 billion in interest last year on its outstanding debt, and has already paid more than that this year. You really need to try and understand that the problem is that the United States is quickly running up ruinous debt. If interest rates spike, the United States could find its options severely limited.
Comment by Zachriel — September 27, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
September 27th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Bert:
Well, I'm not all that well-versed on how much is enough these days, and the income cap rises every time they tweak the law. Right now I think it's at $90K. When you think about it, it's a significant income tax - nearly 8% if your employer pays half, or more than 15% if you're self-employed, of ALL income up to the cap.
Maybe there should be no SS cap at all, and the tax should apply to all income that's classified as non-dividend, annuity, etc. related. Different taxes apply to investments, capital gains and such, instrument-related as opposed to actual work-related. Those have been cut or eliminated in recent years for most rich folks.
John McCain says you're officially 'rich' when you make $5 million a year. But he also thinks I wouldn't gladly pick lettuce for $50 an hour, so he's obviously disconnected… §;o)
Comment by Joy — September 27, 2008 @ 4:56 pm
September 27th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
http://www.opensecrets.org/pfd...
Comment by Rock — September 27, 2008 @ 5:24 pm
September 27th, 2008 at 5:50 pm