They are fascists, not communists. The reality will sink in too late.
What is the difference? Communism is Socialism is Fascism. Complete government control of your life.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They are fascists, not communists. The reality will sink in too late.
They are fascists, not communists. The reality will sink in too late.
What is the difference? Communism is Socialism is Fascism. Complete government control of your life.
They are fascists, not communists. The reality will sink in too late.
What is the difference? Communism is Socialism is Fascism. Complete government control of your life.
Here is the problem.
We have allowed these institutions to become too big to fail. We have allowed these institutions to write unregulated financial contracts such that the notional amount totals many multiples of world GDP. We have allowed these institutions to make enormous bets based on implicit leverage that they never fully understood. We have allowed the financial system to get so massive that their failure imperils the economy in a frightening way.
In banking, the bargain is that we allow financial institutions to get levered up and supply credit to the economy, but if they fail, the government moves in and seizes the institution to prevent runs on the financial system. Depositors are protected by insurance administered by the government, with the taxpayer the ultimate backstop for the system. Thus, if you are going to be insured, the trade-off is that if you screw up, you are dead and the government owns you.
We have failed to stop the financial system from imperiling the nation. This is dead serious. Banks that had never been under the auspices of federal regulatory control have had to be bailed out by the Federal Reserve and the US Treasury, costing the US taxpayer hundreds of billions of dollars. They have been effectively seized and backstopped anyways, even though they did not submit themselves to the same level of regulation.
You want to repeat the Great Depression? Watch them tip over and smash the real economy around them. That's when you get a 30% contraction in GDP and 25% unemployment. Start letting these guys fail like dominoes. It was the failure of thousands of banks more than anything that pushed the economy into The Great Depression.
With nearly three-quarters of the credit flowing outside of the formal banking system, and it becoming very apparent that these institutions are too big to fail, seizing these institutions merely gives the government the same power it has over the formal banking system. If you are so big that your failure imperils the economy and you need to be bailed out by the US taxpayer, then you will be seized to protect the US taxpayer, just like a bank.
I don't disagree with your point. At the same time, there's too much danger inherent in giving the US Treasury Dept that much power.
I've been wondering when these dipshit politicians were going to wake up and realize corporations like AIG could wipe the world's economy if they failed, and posted as much a couple a weeks ago.
I would prefer to see the Treasury given case-by-by case authority to seize corporations that look like they are going to fail rather than blanket authority to seize whoever they say fits the bill.
The Dems are so big on oversight ... where is it here?
WOW... It's almost as if these people are implementing MARXIST Policy! Which would be rather odd for those that SOME have claimed are not Marxists...
Who could have EVER foreseen that the US government would be looking for the power to seize the means of production?
I mean, to KNOW THAT... One would almost have to KNOW that those with life long histories of Marxist advocacies can be expected to implement Marxist policy upon the assention to power!
That's just CRAZY MAN!
WOW. Idiot. The government seizing free enterprise is not solely a tenet of Marxism, so STFU, huh? The Democrats being dumbasses doesn't make you right, nor less of a dumbass.
Here is the problem.
We have allowed these institutions to become too big to fail. We have allowed these institutions to write unregulated financial contracts such that the notional amount totals many multiples of world GDP. We have allowed these institutions to make enormous bets based on implicit leverage that they never fully understood. We have allowed the financial system to get so massive that their failure imperils the economy in a frightening way.
In banking, the bargain is that we allow financial institutions to get levered up and supply credit to the economy, but if they fail, the government moves in and seizes the institution to prevent runs on the financial system. Depositors are protected by insurance administered by the government, with the taxpayer the ultimate backstop for the system. Thus, if you are going to be insured, the trade-off is that if you screw up, you are dead and the government owns you.
We have failed to stop the financial system from imperiling the nation. This is dead serious. Banks that had never been under the auspices of federal regulatory control have had to be bailed out by the Federal Reserve and the US Treasury, costing the US taxpayer hundreds of billions of dollars. They have been effectively seized and backstopped anyways, even though they did not submit themselves to the same level of regulation.
You want to repeat the Great Depression? Watch them tip over and smash the real economy around them. That's when you get a 30% contraction in GDP and 25% unemployment. Start letting these guys fail like dominoes. It was the failure of thousands of banks more than anything that pushed the economy into The Great Depression.
With nearly three-quarters of the credit flowing outside of the formal banking system, and it becoming very apparent that these institutions are too big to fail, seizing these institutions merely gives the government the same power it has over the formal banking system. If you are so big that your failure imperils the economy and you need to be bailed out by the US taxpayer, then you will be seized to protect the US taxpayer, just like a bank.
I don't disagree with your point. At the same time, there's too much danger inherent in giving the US Treasury Dept that much power.
I've been wondering when these dipshit politicians were going to wake up and realize corporations like AIG could wipe the world's economy if they failed, and posted as much a couple a weeks ago.
I would prefer to see the Treasury given case-by-by case authority to seize corporations that look like they are going to fail rather than blanket authority to seize whoever they say fits the bill.
The Dems are so big on oversight ... where is it here?
Yeah, I understand that. Ideally, the government wouldn't own anything.
However, the government already seizes banks and winds them down in an orderly fashion. The government already is seizing de facto control over financial companies outside of the regulatory framework. If we are going to do so anyways, its best to do so in an orderly fashion so that everyone knows what the rules are. The government has been flying by the seat of its pants over the past year. This - ideally - implements an orderly and transparent process.
WOW... It's almost as if these people are implementing MARXIST Policy! Which would be rather odd for those that SOME have claimed are not Marxists...
Who could have EVER foreseen that the US government would be looking for the power to seize the means of production?
I mean, to KNOW THAT... One would almost have to KNOW that those with life long histories of Marxist advocacies can be expected to implement Marxist policy upon the assention to power!
That's just CRAZY MAN!
WOW. Idiot. The government seizing free enterprise is not solely a tenet of Marxism, so STFU, huh? The Democrats being dumbasses doesn't make you right, nor less of a dumbass.
ROFLMNAO... Oh GOD that's precious!
What a LOVELY demonstration of just HOW the US came from defeating the Communist in the 1980s to ELECTING a Communist only 20 years later.
Go ahead Gunny... explain who it is that the Marxist Muslim is actually a Right winger...
It's okay. They aren't listening to suspected terrorists phone calls so it's not a violation of anyone's rights.
i was worried for a minute, but you put it in perspective for me.
Let's face it. I was giving Obama more than the benefit of doubt, but this is getting almost surreal.
Giving the Treasury the authority to seize basically whatever they deem economically vital? Translation: the government is going to take over AIG.
Is anyone actually LOOKING at WTF our government is doing?
They are fascists, not communists. The reality will sink in too late.
What is the difference? Communism is Socialism is Fascism. Complete government control of your life.
At the top and what is 'demanded' of the masses. There are differences and dangers in each.
Here is the problem.
We have allowed these institutions to become too big to fail. We have allowed these institutions to write unregulated financial contracts such that the notional amount totals many multiples of world GDP. We have allowed these institutions to make enormous bets based on implicit leverage that they never fully understood. We have allowed the financial system to get so massive that their failure imperils the economy in a frightening way.
In banking, the bargain is that we allow financial institutions to get levered up and supply credit to the economy, but if they fail, the government moves in and seizes the institution to prevent runs on the financial system. Depositors are protected by insurance administered by the government, with the taxpayer the ultimate backstop for the system. Thus, if you are going to be insured, the trade-off is that if you screw up, you are dead and the government owns you.
We have failed to stop the financial system from imperiling the nation. This is dead serious. Banks that had never been under the auspices of federal regulatory control have had to be bailed out by the Federal Reserve and the US Treasury, costing the US taxpayer hundreds of billions of dollars. They have been effectively seized and backstopped anyways, even though they did not submit themselves to the same level of regulation.
You want to repeat the Great Depression? Watch them tip over and smash the real economy around them. That's when you get a 30% contraction in GDP and 25% unemployment. Start letting these guys fail like dominoes. It was the failure of thousands of banks more than anything that pushed the economy into The Great Depression.
With nearly three-quarters of the credit flowing outside of the formal banking system, and it becoming very apparent that these institutions are too big to fail, seizing these institutions merely gives the government the same power it has over the formal banking system. If you are so big that your failure imperils the economy and you need to be bailed out by the US taxpayer, then you will be seized to protect the US taxpayer, just like a bank.
The Great Depression was what it was, NOT because of the failure of banks... but a function of the FAILURE OF GOVERNMENT TO KEEP IT SELF WITHIN CONSTITUTIONAL BOUNDARIES; TO STAY OUT OF THE PRIVATE MARKETS.
If the banking system fails it will fail BECAUSE of federal regulation, NOT due to a lack of it.
The Banks did not run, on their OWN, to violate prudent actuarial lending. THAT was a DIRECT result of abuse of power by LEFTIST LEGISLATORS who threatened that market with the full power of the Federal government, when it threatened to prosecute that industry through the BASTARDIZATION of ANY reasonable understanding of CIVIL RIGHTS laws, because prudent actuarial lending thresholds necessarily precluded many individuals which the left sought to use as political fodder.
The Great Depression was what it was, NOT because of the failure of banks... but a function of the FAILURE OF GOVERNMENT TO KEEP IT SELF WITHIN CONSTITUTIONAL BOUNDARIES; TO STAY OUT OF THE PRIVATE MARKETS.
If the banking system fails it will fail BECAUSE of federal regulation, NOT due to a lack of it.
The Banks did not run, on their OWN, to violate prudent actuarial lending. THAT was a DIRECT result of abuse of power by LEFTIST LEGISLATORS who threatened that market with the full power of the Federal government, when it threatened to prosecute that industry through the BASTARDIZATION of ANY reasonable understanding of CIVIL RIGHTS laws, because prudent actuarial lending thresholds necessarily precluded many individuals which the left sought to use as political fodder.
This is not a serious argument. Polemic rants should be ignored.
Thousands of banks failed between 1929 and 1933. Banking regulation was light as banks speculated in the stock market with depositors' funds. This wasn't the only reason why banks failed - deflation in the commodity markets was the primary reason after the post-war boom ended probably was. However, the market induced their implosion for the most part., not regulators. This massive failure caused a tremendous credit contraction as a third of the banking reserves were drained from the system. The ratio of cash in circulation to deposits soared to all time highs as people were so afraid of bank runs, they would have rather kept their money in their mattresses than their deposit accounts. In fact, a Federal Reserve study concluded that banks that failed were in aggregate as sound or more so than banks did not. Ben Bernanke - the world's acknowledged foremost scholar on The Depression - concluded that the creation of the FDIC was the single most important factor in ending the Depression. Milton Friedman also highlighted the crucial importance of the FDIC in ending the Depression.
I don't understand why you think the government taking control of failing financial institutions in order to clean them up is unconstitutional. They've done it with banks for longer than we've all been alive, why is this different in your view?i was worried for a minute, but you put it in perspective for me.
Let's face it. I was giving Obama more than the benefit of doubt, but this is getting almost surreal.
Giving the Treasury the authority to seize basically whatever they deem economically vital? Translation: the government is going to take over AIG.
Is anyone actually LOOKING at WTF our government is doing?
i wasn't disagreeing with you.
from what i've seen so far, i'd say that mr obama has no more regard for the Constitution than the last guy, whatsisname. it seems to me that the proposal in the OP is, at best, the nose of the camel.
the patriot act has nothing on this, IMO.
I don't understand why you think the government taking control of failing financial institutions in order to clean them up is unconstitutional. They've done it with banks for longer than we've all been alive, why is this different in your view?Let's face it. I was giving Obama more than the benefit of doubt, but this is getting almost surreal.
Giving the Treasury the authority to seize basically whatever they deem economically vital? Translation: the government is going to take over AIG.
Is anyone actually LOOKING at WTF our government is doing?
i wasn't disagreeing with you.
from what i've seen so far, i'd say that mr obama has no more regard for the Constitution than the last guy, whatsisname. it seems to me that the proposal in the OP is, at best, the nose of the camel.
the patriot act has nothing on this, IMO.
It also doesn't say they can't.I don't understand why you think the government taking control of failing financial institutions in order to clean them up is unconstitutional. They've done it with banks for longer than we've all been alive, why is this different in your view?i wasn't disagreeing with you.
from what i've seen so far, i'd say that mr obama has no more regard for the Constitution than the last guy, whatsisname. it seems to me that the proposal in the OP is, at best, the nose of the camel.
the patriot act has nothing on this, IMO.
It's unconstitutional because the Constitution doesn't give authority to the federal government to take control of failing financial institutions.
It also doesn't say they can't.I don't understand why you think the government taking control of failing financial institutions in order to clean them up is unconstitutional. They've done it with banks for longer than we've all been alive, why is this different in your view?
It's unconstitutional because the Constitution doesn't give authority to the federal government to take control of failing financial institutions.
Does the constitution give authority to take control of failing banks?
I have a feeling we aren't going to agree on this. The federal government, imo, has a duty to provide for the general welfare of the country. Therefore they are within their rights to seize institutions that threaten the stability of the country until that time that they no longer pose a threat.It also doesn't say they can't.It's unconstitutional because the Constitution doesn't give authority to the federal government to take control of failing financial institutions.
Does the constitution give authority to take control of failing banks?
That's not how the Constitution works. Only those powers stated in the Constitution are legitimate powers of the federal government.
No.