Mandatory Healthcare?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

what's actually radical is the rhetoric being piped down from the extreme right and repeated here that there is no legitimate role for government in the economy. anytime. anywhere. that cutting government is always good and if we just unleash market forces all problems will be solved.

that seems to fly in the face of the experience we just went through where regulation of banking was loosened to the point that the invisible hand of the market just about steered us into a depression. and were it not for unprecedented government intervention in the economy, would have.

the problem is the right can't seem to learn. the rhetoric is always the same regardless of the circumstance.

Your generalization is far offbase.

The idea that of lax banking regulation almost forcing us into a depression or govt intervention somehow prevented that from happening is complete fiction. Roughly a month a ago the Fed Reserve admitted that the basic premise that the original TARP was passed upon was for the most part not true.

I guess you missed the that.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Your generalization is far offbase.

The idea that of lax banking regulation almost forcing us into a depression or govt intervention somehow prevented that from happening is complete fiction. Roughly a month a ago the Fed Reserve admitted that the basic premise that the original TARP was passed upon was for the most part not true.

I guess you missed the that.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB3000...049537744.html

[Cannon Shell]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...408387548.html

Spin this

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Why would you think anyone you are arguing with would take anything in the WSJ seriously? One of the 1st things I see on there is Karl Rove's name. If he's on there, it's limited. Can I write on there about illegal immigration, n' Islam? That's really the 2 issues you folks have come correct on(2 hits, and a gang of outs.)

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Why would you think anyone you are arguing with would take anything in the WSJ seriously? One of the 1st things I see on there is Karl Rove's name. If he's on there, it's limited. Can I write on there about illigal immigration, n' Islam? That's really the 2 issues you folks have come correct on(2 hits, and a gang of outs.)

that would be like saying fox news is liberal because alan colmes had his name on there. i don't care for karl rove, but i still read the wsj.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Danzig

that would be like saying fox news is liberal because alan colmes had his name on there. i don't care for karl rove, but i still read the wsj.

Cheney n' Rove are off the chart. If either one is writing in your paper, then it's only credible with Conservatives. To be honest, MSNBC(Progressive) and Fox News are that way, too. To MSNBC's credit, they do have Scarborough, and Buchanon on in the early mornings. They each at least have a good sense of humor(especially Pat.) When you have Pat Buchanon sitting there as Mika-the-Blonde is reading the news, it's a minefield. They were talking about the glut of Chihuahuas in Cali animal shelters, and Joe asked him what he thought about it.

Pat said "Those are Mexican Dogs....Aren't they?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuUdV...eature=related

^ Watch him blow it up after the fist pound starting at 2:05. LOL.They are talking about his interview with Ali G. That was pretty kool, too. He's such a good sport.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAfQh...eature=related

lol..at 1:00 Pat stars..MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYBODY!! Laugh, cry, or drink some more wine.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Why would you think anyone you are arguing with would take anything in the WSJ seriously? One of the 1st things I see on there is Karl Rove's name. If he's on there, it's limited. Can I write on there about illigal immigration, n' Islam? That's really the 2 issues you folks have come correct on(2 hits, and a gang of outs.)

The WSJ is a big boy publication.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The WSJ is a big boy publication.

Not so much on the op-ed page since Rupert Murdoch bought it in 2007. You know Rupert - owner of Fox News?

You're the only guy I know who quotes op-ed pieces as if they were fact.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Not so much on the op-ed page since Rupert Murdoch bought it in 2007. You know Rupert - owner of Fox News?

You're the only guy I know who quotes op-ed pieces as if they were fact.

As if you have been a regular reader.....

Simply refute all the lies and made up stuff in those op-eds. What alot of columns and op-eds do is breakdown complicated issues down to plain english. Perhaps if you protested specific items in those pieces you could enlighten us to all the bias and untruths being spread.

We all know that wont happen...

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...408387548.html

Spin this

"Dr. Gottlieb ... He is partner to a firm that invests in health-care companies."

Naw. This guy would have no interest at all in looking out for the financial interests of healthcare companies, first and foremost, in any healthcare reform. Not part of that lobby. Nope.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

"Dr. Gottlieb ... He is partner to a firm that invests in health-care companies."

Naw. This guy would have no interest at all in looking out for the financial interests of healthcare companies, first and foremost, in any healthcare reform. Not part of that lobby. Nope.

Of course, why wouldnt we want to hear from experts? They are all just biased. LOL. His involvement is fully disclosed. Perhaps you want to argue a point he made?

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB3000...049537744.html

i don't have any issues with the themes of this article. it's a fairly factual summary.

i do wonder what part you think proves your point and not mine.

citibank shouldn't have been allowed to become too big to fail citigroup. the government failed in it's role as regulator of the banking sector. that was a decades long process.

i'm unclear how the fact that the bush admin decided not to allow another major bank failure after lehman (the right decision in my opinion) proves that the free market is the answer to all economic problems.

should citi and aig been allowed to fail? what do you think the unemployment rate would be now if that happened?

i think we need a free market. i also think history has taught market's work best with some regulation. where the line falls is open to debate. what's not is the extreme idea that market's need no regulation whatsoever. which seems to be what the republican right is currently preaching.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

i don't have any issues with the themes of this article. it's a fairly factual summary.

i do wonder what part you think proves your point and not mine.

citibank shouldn't have been allowed to become too big to fail citigroup. the government failed in it's role as regulator of the banking sector. that was a decades long process.

i'm unclear how the fact that the bush admin decided not to allow another major bank failure after lehman (the right decision in my opinion) proves that the free market is the answer to all economic problems.

should citi and aig been allowed to fail? what do you think the unemployment rate would be now if that happened?

i think we need a free market. i also think history has taught market's work best with some regulation. where the line falls is open to debate. what's not is the extreme idea that market's need no regulation whatsoever. which seems to be what the republican right is currently preaching.

I am not exactly clear on what regulation you are pushing for? If you want to argue that banks should have not been allowed to expand into so many other non-banking areas like insurance, i would probably agree to some degree though obviously with 20/20 hindsight.

However I dont see how any of this proves your point???

But it pays to remember what a bad idea TARP capital injections were in the first place.

The nature of the problem was first apparent, ironically, in the rush of healthy banks to join Citi and friends under the so-called Troubled Asset Relief Program, fearing the lack of an imprimatur as a bank Washington had decided would not "fail."

That dynamic ran in reverse last week as banks rushed to pay back TARP money and shed the onus of government support. Bank of America had to be hurried out because Bank of America was looking for a CEO and couldn't find or pay one as long as it was laboring under Washington's populist pay restrictions.

Acknowledging TARP's perverse impact on Bank of America's CEO dilemma, Treasury and FDIC could hardly pretend it wasn't deleterious for Citi and Wells Fargo's ability to run their own businesses. Terms were quickly hammered out to let them escape, too.

Voila, a scheme designed to strengthen confidence in the financial system had become the opposite, in compounding fashion.


Let's have a moment of realism: Policy toward these giant banks always had as its primary goal saving the government from having to take them over and run them, as it has (wretchedly) AIG. It was to avoid the disaster of nationalization.

Legs one and two (plus the FDIC's guaranteeing of bank debts) were always sufficient to meet this goal and keep the giant banks stumbling along under private management and control. TARP capital injections were not only superfluous but invited the calamity they were meant to avoid, with politicians running rampant in the hallways. Take the cautionary example of Fannie and Freddie, which today are not being "conserved' in federal conservatorship but are being used to prop up home prices. For the banks, exiting TARP at least reduces the risk of similar corruption.


Washington chose not to dismantle Citi, so it should have expected no less. Oh well. In a crisis, politicians will look around for businesses "too big to fail," and any conceivable Citi would likely fit the bill, as it has since the 1970s. This problem may not be fixable, but what are fixable are the deeper antecedents of last year's troubles.

Fewer banks would have inflicted such damage on themselves if not for the government's role in encouraging Americans to incur housing debt, with direct subsidies, tax incentives and the use of Fannie and Freddie to channel China's surpluses into a U.S. housing boom.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I am not exactly clear on what regulation you are pushing for? If you want to argue that banks should have not been allowed to expand into so many other non-banking areas like insurance, i would probably agree to some degree though obviously with 20/20 hindsight.

However I dont see how any of this proves your point???

But it pays to remember what a bad idea TARP capital injections were in the first place.

The nature of the problem was first apparent, ironically, in the rush of healthy banks to join Citi and friends under the so-called Troubled Asset Relief Program, fearing the lack of an imprimatur as a bank Washington had decided would not "fail."

That dynamic ran in reverse last week as banks rushed to pay back TARP money and shed the onus of government support. Bank of America had to be hurried out because Bank of America was looking for a CEO and couldn't find or pay one as long as it was laboring under Washington's populist pay restrictions.

Acknowledging TARP's perverse impact on Bank of America's CEO dilemma, Treasury and FDIC could hardly pretend it wasn't deleterious for Citi and Wells Fargo's ability to run their own businesses. Terms were quickly hammered out to let them escape, too.

Voila, a scheme designed to strengthen confidence in the financial system had become the opposite, in compounding fashion.


Let's have a moment of realism: Policy toward these giant banks always had as its primary goal saving the government from having to take them over and run them, as it has (wretchedly) AIG. It was to avoid the disaster of nationalization.

Legs one and two (plus the FDIC's guaranteeing of bank debts) were always sufficient to meet this goal and keep the giant banks stumbling along under private management and control. TARP capital injections were not only superfluous but invited the calamity they were meant to avoid, with politicians running rampant in the hallways. Take the cautionary example of Fannie and Freddie, which today are not being "conserved' in federal conservatorship but are being used to prop up home prices. For the banks, exiting TARP at least reduces the risk of similar corruption.


Washington chose not to dismantle Citi, so it should have expected no less. Oh well. In a crisis, politicians will look around for businesses "too big to fail," and any conceivable Citi would likely fit the bill, as it has since the 1970s. This problem may not be fixable, but what are fixable are the deeper antecedents of last year's troubles.

Fewer banks would have inflicted such damage on themselves if not for the government's role in encouraging Americans to incur housing debt, with direct subsidies, tax incentives and the use of Fannie and Freddie to channel China's surpluses into a U.S. housing boom.

i don't think i'm pushing for any specific regulation. i think it's more pushing back against the right wing meme of all government involvement in the economy being bad.

the article suggests that the regulation could have been different. other decisions could have been made. things could have been done better.

i can't argue against any of that.

i'd just like one of the fox poster's here to acknowledge that there's a legitimate role for government in the economy.