Another increase in the size of government

[Wild Cobra]

Obama to tout financial overhaul as good for economy (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66K1QR20100721)

snippet:
It includes creation of a new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, which will regulate products ranging from credit cards to mortgages. The administration considered it one of the most critical parts of the bill.

We don't need a bigger government. We need a more effective lean government. These new responsibilities need to go to already established consumer departments. Now the left hand will not be knowing what the right hand is doing.

[boutons_deux]

"more effective lean government"

Capitalism won't Do The Right Thing. "Right" in the ethical or moral sense doesn't even exist in capitalism. Capitalism needs regulations, policing, enforcement, penalties, all of which are labor-intensive. The only institution capable is the federal govt.

[spursncowboys]

a side effect i believe is that these banks will cut out the small guy to pay for the increase of cost. So again the middle class gets screwed when the govt. helps.

[CosmicCowboy]

Oh and when they start "protecting" the consumers by regulating interest rates and terms on credit cards they will be "shocked" when the companies react by requiring a 700+ credit score to get a card and still put strict credit limits on it. It's called risk/reward. Take away the rate reward and banks won't risk extending credit to even mildly questionable people. Oh those evil bankers!

[CuckingFunt]

Oh and when they start "protecting" the consumers by regulating interest rates and terms on credit cards they will be "shocked" when the companies react by requiring a 700+ credit score to get a card and still put strict credit limits on it. It's called risk/reward. Take away the rate reward and banks won't risk extending credit to even mildly questionable people.

That's a bad thing?

[CosmicCowboy]

That's a bad thing?

I don't think so, but they will be raising hell with the "evil banks" because they won't loan money to "people that need it".

[Stringer_Bell]

Oh and when they start "protecting" the consumers by regulating interest rates and terms on credit cards they will be "shocked" when the companies react by requiring a 700+ credit score to get a card and still put strict credit limits on it. It's called risk/reward. Take away the rate reward and banks won't risk extending credit to even mildly questionable people. Oh those evil bankers!

Less people applying for money and spending money they don't have?!?! :wow

[boutons_deux]

they won't loan money to "people that need it".

... already the case. The banks are fucking up small business and the economy with too-tight credit, maximizing the pain in the run up to November, to punish MN for the financial reform, for daring to challenge the almighty power of the finance sector.

Fuck the big banks, fuck VISA and Mastercard networks.

Every state should do this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_North_Dakota

and then form their own clearing house and ATM/cc's.

[Wild Cobra]

"more effective lean government"

Capitalism won't Do The Right Thing. "Right" in the ethical or moral sense doesn't even exist in capitalism. Capitalism needs regulations, policing, enforcement, penalties, all of which are labor-intensive. The only institution capable is the federal govt.
LOL...

This mess started because politicians tried picking winners and losers with regulations. If the banks were made responsible for their loans, rather than giving them the ability to bulk sell bad loans, this never would have happened.

The free market does protect itself.

[Wild Cobra]

Oh and when they start "protecting" the consumers by regulating interest rates and terms on credit cards they will be "shocked" when the companies react by requiring a 700+ credit score to get a card and still put strict credit limits on it. It's called risk/reward. Take away the rate reward and banks won't risk extending credit to even mildly questionable people. Oh those evil bankers!
And the evil capitalists will get blamed again. Not the regulators.

[boutons_deux]

"If the banks were made responsible for their loans"

nobody forced the banks to do anything, they were "free" to sell their mortgages into the MBS black hole.

"free market does protect itself."

obviously supported by the completely free, unregulated, opaque Casino Banksters' Great Depression.

[RandomGuy]

LOL...

This mess started because politicians tried picking winners and losers with regulations. If the banks were made responsible for their loans, rather than giving them the ability to bulk sell bad loans, this never would have happened.

The free market does protect itself.

If the "free market protects itself" how do you explain monopolies?

[CosmicCowboy]

"If the banks were made responsible for their loans"

nobody forced the banks to do anything, they were "free" to sell their mortgages into the MBS black hole.

"free market does protect itself."

obviously supported by the completely free, unregulated, opaque Casino Banksters' Great Depression.

Boutons, Fanny and Freddy were telling them..."We'll buy every bit of the shit paper you can write". They knew EXACTLY what they were doing when they revised the guidelines to allow 0 down and no income verification. Then Fanny and Freddie would launder that bad shit through Goldman Sachs etc., put a new name on it with a "guarantee" and flip it on down the road. This wasn't true capitalism enterprise run amuck...This was Government sponsored enterprises raping and pillaging the taxpayers.

[baseline bum]

That's a bad thing?

Exactly what I was thinking.

[CosmicCowboy]

Exactly what I was thinking.

I agree, but then the politicians/media will be attacking banks because they won't lend to people that "need" to borrow money.

[Wild Cobra]

If the "free market protects itself" how do you explain monopolies?
It's no longer free.

This is when regulation do need to control prices. That's for a commerce clause thread.

[beachwood]

That fucktard Bush exploded the size of government.

http://www.aier.org/images/stories/research/fedbudget.png

[Wild Cobra]

That fucktard Bush exploded the size of government.

http://www.aier.org/images/stories/research/fedbudget.png
If you say so Mr. Franken.

You use as a percentage of GDP when it suits you, not in actual dollars.

How does that compare when inflation adjusted?

And again. I can budget for under what I make each month. That doesn't mean I don't go and change my mind later an buy more than I budgeted for.

You liberals are hilarious thinking a budget = spending.

[George Gervin's Afro]

a side effect i believe is that these banks will cut out the small guy to pay for the increase of cost. So again the middle class gets screwed when the govt. helps.

you really just made this up didn't you?

[LnGrrrR]

Speaking about increased size of the government, would any of the conservatives in this thread care to comment on the "Top Secret America" thread I posted? That's all about increased government size as well.

[Wild Cobra]

Speaking about increased size of the government, would any of the conservatives in this thread care to comment on the "Top Secret America" thread I posted? That's all about increased government size as well.
I haven't taken the time to familiarize myself with it enough.

[Wild Cobra]

That fucktard Bush exploded the size of government.

http://www.aier.org/images/stories/research/fedbudget.png
What about extending that to Obama, by GNP:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/percentageofgdp.jpg

I can make a dollar figure one if you like, but it may go off the paper with Obama.

If you look at the 2011 budget I linked, you will find that about 1/3rd of it is financed by borrowing. We have never budgeted to borrow that much since WWII.

My graph is data from Table 1.2—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-) as Percentages of GDP: 1930–2015 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/hist01z2.xls)

[LnGrrrR]

I haven't taken the time to familiarize myself with it enough.

The article's there at your leisure. :toast

[beachwood]

What about extending that to Obama, by GNP:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/percentageofgdp.jpg

I can make a dollar figure one if you like, but it may go off the paper with Obama.

If you look at the 2011 budget I linked, you will find that about 1/3rd of it is financed by borrowing. We have never budgeted to borrow that much since WWII.

My graph is data from Table 1.2—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-) as Percentages of GDP: 1930–2015 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/hist01z2.xls)

You act like the decision to spend was done in a vacuum. Why do you think we had to spend? We were in a recession that was caused by the previous Republican administration. The decision to spend was a good one in order to stop the bleeding. Since then the economy has grown.

[spursncowboys]

The article's there at your leisure. :toast
I saw a segment about that on tv. it's been long enough for us to know what is working and what isn't. there is always too much crap when it involves the pentagon or dod. I say we cut the af's budget. take away their comfy chairs. give them folding chairs. hows that sound lngrrrr :toast

[LnGrrrR]

I saw a segment about that on tv. it's been long enough for us to know what is working and what isn't. there is always too much crap when it involves the pentagon or dod. I say we cut the af's budget. take away their comfy chairs. give them folding chairs. hows that sound lngrrrr :toast

Folding chairs is a bit extreme, considering I'm probably getting paid about half to 1/3 what I could make on the outside... you're lucky I'm a patriot! :lol

Besides, the Air Force budget has already been slashed in some areas... remember all that brouhaha about the F22s?

My shop's running a network of 10K+ users with roughly 7 people... if my shop gets any more funding/manning cut people will be using dixie cups on strings. :D

[Ignignokt]

You act like the decision to spend was done in a vacuum. Why do you think we had to spend? We were in a recession that was caused by the previous Republican administration. The decision to spend was a good one in order to stop the bleeding. Since then the economy has grown.

WE don't need to expand medicare under obamacare nor do we need capn trade, or civilian service expansion.

[Ignignokt]

And beachwood, don't be a dumbass. Bush did not repeal Glass Steagal, nor started the concept of artificial low interest rates, nor increased the power of Fannie and Freddie as weill as start fractional reserve lending.

Your own argument dick thumps you well.

[Ignignokt]

We also didn't have to bail out AIG nor GM. Stupid Stupid Stupid.

[RandomGuy]

If the "free market protects itself" how do you explain monopolies?


It's no longer free.

This is when regulation do need to control prices. That's for a commerce clause thread.

So what you were saying is that you were wrong when you stated, "the free market will protect itself."

What you meant was "the free market can protect itself, but sometimes needs regulators to step in when something unfair happens".

Thanks for clearing that up.

[boutons_deux]

WC's ivory tower theoretical free market-itis is incurable.

Every businessman's wet dream is to have a monopoly or near-monopoly to be abused, like Bill Gates, or health insurance, or VISA/Mastercard. And they will destroy, defeat, buy, buy off, buy+close competitors whenever they can to approach monopoly power.

WC's "conservative" free-market exists only in his head.

[beachwood]

We also didn't have to bail out AIG nor GM. Stupid Stupid Stupid.

Bush bankrupted the country with his massive tax cuts for the rich and two unpaid for wars. To defend his presidency is an exercise in futility, but go ahead. He nearly doubled the national debt by the time he left office.

I love how Bush was a two term president, but nothing is his fault according the right wing extremists who followed him off a cliff. What the hell was he doing in office for 8 years? I guess he's just a victim of circumstances.

Put your huntin' rifle back on the gun rack, take off your neocon glasses and walk into the real world.

[CosmicCowboy]

Bush bankrupted the country with his massive tax cuts for the rich and two unpaid for wars. To defend his presidency is an exercise in futility, but go ahead. He nearly doubled the national debt by the time he left office.

I love how Bush was a two term president, but nothing is his fault according the right wing extremists who followed him off a cliff. What the hell was he doing in office for 8 years? I guess he's just a victim of circumstances.

Put your huntin' rifle back on the gun rack, take off your neocon glasses and walk into the real world.

Hey deadwood...you realize the Democrats in the house/senate are about to extend the tax cuts don't you? They are falling like dominos.

[beachwood]

Hey deadwood...you realize the Democrats in the house/senate are about to extend the tax cuts don't you? They are falling like dominos.

Is that all you got? You're bringing some weak sauce.

Obama is proposing to let the tax cuts for the top two brackets expire, but extend the cuts for the middle class. Which sounds good to me.

[CosmicCowboy]

Is that all you got? You're bringing some weak sauce.

Obama is proposing to let the tax cuts for the top two brackets expire, but extend the cuts for the middle class. Which sounds good to me.

Try to keep up, deadwood.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703954804575381501862552246.html

Two more Senate Democrats called for extending tax cuts for all earners—including those with the highest incomes—in what appears to be a breakdown of the party's consensus on the how to handle the expiration of Bush-era tax cuts.

Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) said in an interview Wednesday that Congress shouldn't allow taxes on the wealthy to rise until the economy is on a sounder footing.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) said through a spokesman that he also supported extending all the expiring tax cuts for now, adding that he wanted to offset the impact on federal deficits as much as possible.

They are the second and third Senate Democrats to come out publicly in recent days in favor of extending all the tax breaks for the time being. Sen. Evan Bayh (D., Ind.) made similar comments last week.

"As a general rule, you don't want to be cutting spending or raising taxes in the midst of a downturn," Mr. Conrad said. "We know that very soon we've got to pivot and focus on the deficit. But it probably is too soon to cut spending or raise taxes."

The comments from the senators represent a departure from what appeared to be an emerging unified Democratic stance on the Bush tax cuts, which held that those for the wealthiest Americans should be allowed to expire.

President Barack Obama and most Democrats want to extend only the breaks benefiting taxpayers who make $250,000 or less.

Allowing breaks for higher earners to expire would push the top individual tax rate to 39.6% from 35%, and would raise rates on capital gains and dividends, too.

The breaks enacted in 2001 and 2003, which affect taxpayers of all income levels, expire at the end of this year.

Republicans and many business groups favor extending all the breaks, contending that increasing tax rates will hit small businesses hard. With U.S. employment still weak, some centrist Democrats are agreeing, prompted to change their stance by the still-ugly economic picture.

In addition to Messrs. Conrad, Nelson and Bayh, at least half a dozen House Democrats also have come out publicly in favor of postponing tax increases for higher earners.

"We're not creating jobs, and raising taxes now would not be a great idea," Rep. Michael McMahon, a New York Democrat, said this week.

Democrats can't afford to lose many of their own members on the issue. At a minimum, the internal party debate increases the odds that Democrats won't tackle the question of extending the tax cuts until after the November election.

Further delays will expose Democrats to Republican charges that they want to allow all the tax cuts to expire, which the Democrats deny. It is possible that any extension would be only temporary.

Rep. Sander Levin (D., Mich.), chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, said Wednesday that no decisions had been made on when to take up the tax cuts in the House, but he said the Senate "needs to act first."

Republicans are hoping the expiring Bush tax cuts become a bigger issue in the August recess, when lawmakers go home to talk with constituents. Already, House Republicans have begun pointing to the "ticking tax bomb" that will go off at year's end absent congressional action.

The GOP, for its part, runs some risks pushing for an extension of all the tax cuts, given the nation's sharpening focus on the budget deficit.

A one-year extension would cost at least $115 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Republicans have been pushing Congress to pay for any new spending to avoid increasing the deficit, but they argue tax cuts shouldn't be paid for.

[boutons_deux]

Geithner has flip-flopped and is now promoting Warren for CFPA.

[beachwood]

Try to keep up, deadwood.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703954804575381501862552246.html

Two more Senate Democrats called for extending tax cuts for all earners—including those with the highest incomes—in what appears to be a breakdown of the party's consensus on the how to handle the expiration of Bush-era tax cuts.

Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) said in an interview Wednesday that Congress shouldn't allow taxes on the wealthy to rise until the economy is on a sounder footing.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) said through a spokesman that he also supported extending all the expiring tax cuts for now, adding that he wanted to offset the impact on federal deficits as much as possible.

They are the second and third Senate Democrats to come out publicly in recent days in favor of extending all the tax breaks for the time being. Sen. Evan Bayh (D., Ind.) made similar comments last week.

"As a general rule, you don't want to be cutting spending or raising taxes in the midst of a downturn," Mr. Conrad said. "We know that very soon we've got to pivot and focus on the deficit. But it probably is too soon to cut spending or raise taxes."

The comments from the senators represent a departure from what appeared to be an emerging unified Democratic stance on the Bush tax cuts, which held that those for the wealthiest Americans should be allowed to expire.

President Barack Obama and most Democrats want to extend only the breaks benefiting taxpayers who make $250,000 or less.

Allowing breaks for higher earners to expire would push the top individual tax rate to 39.6% from 35%, and would raise rates on capital gains and dividends, too.

The breaks enacted in 2001 and 2003, which affect taxpayers of all income levels, expire at the end of this year.

Republicans and many business groups favor extending all the breaks, contending that increasing tax rates will hit small businesses hard. With U.S. employment still weak, some centrist Democrats are agreeing, prompted to change their stance by the still-ugly economic picture.

In addition to Messrs. Conrad, Nelson and Bayh, at least half a dozen House Democrats also have come out publicly in favor of postponing tax increases for higher earners.

"We're not creating jobs, and raising taxes now would not be a great idea," Rep. Michael McMahon, a New York Democrat, said this week.

Democrats can't afford to lose many of their own members on the issue. At a minimum, the internal party debate increases the odds that Democrats won't tackle the question of extending the tax cuts until after the November election.

Further delays will expose Democrats to Republican charges that they want to allow all the tax cuts to expire, which the Democrats deny. It is possible that any extension would be only temporary.

Rep. Sander Levin (D., Mich.), chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, said Wednesday that no decisions had been made on when to take up the tax cuts in the House, but he said the Senate "needs to act first."

Republicans are hoping the expiring Bush tax cuts become a bigger issue in the August recess, when lawmakers go home to talk with constituents. Already, House Republicans have begun pointing to the "ticking tax bomb" that will go off at year's end absent congressional action.

The GOP, for its part, runs some risks pushing for an extension of all the tax cuts, given the nation's sharpening focus on the budget deficit.

A one-year extension would cost at least $115 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Republicans have been pushing Congress to pay for any new spending to avoid increasing the deficit, but they argue tax cuts shouldn't be paid for.

I already read the article. Try again. I hope Obama gets his way on this one. I don't think it would be unreasonable to let the tax cuts expire on the top income brackets while extending for the middle class. Just as long as these tax cuts are paid for, then I'm good with it.

But your argument doesn't refute the claim that Bush bankrupted the country by increasing spending and having the tax cuts.

You're just pointing fingers, which is what right wingers do because nothing is their fault. Point and accuse is your ideology and you guys are good at it.

[CosmicCowboy]

*yawn*

[spursncowboys]

Folding chairs is a bit extreme, considering I'm probably getting paid about half to 1/3 what I could make on the outside... you're lucky I'm a patriot! :lol

Besides, the Air Force budget has already been slashed in some areas... remember all that brouhaha about the F22s?

My shop's running a network of 10K+ users with roughly 7 people... if my shop gets any more funding/manning cut people will be using dixie cups on strings. :D

if you think you got it bad you don't want to see the ridiculousness the army works with. and yall can both sit back and have a good laugh at the flying pidgeon system the marines use.
Seriously with all the secret budgets being thrown into the air force's budget, tht would probably be the first place to start the cuts. i think we need to rebuild our military with all the lessons learned from the past ten years but there is ALOT of waste that drives me crazy. from the budgets, to civilians who are absolutely worthless and work half days while getting paid salary. Instead though it is looking like barry is just going to cut down on the personel.

[LnGrrrR]

if you think you got it bad you don't want to see the ridiculousness the army works with. and yall can both sit back and have a good laugh at the flying pidgeon system the marines use.
Seriously with all the secret budgets being thrown into the air force's budget, tht would probably be the first place to start the cuts. i think we need to rebuild our military with all the lessons learned from the past ten years but there is ALOT of waste that drives me crazy. from the budgets, to civilians who are absolutely worthless and work half days while getting paid salary. Instead though it is looking like barry is just going to cut down on the personel.

There's a reason I'm not in the Army. :lol I want to have a decent job when I get out, after all. Besides, in a few years, the Air Force will probably have the most invested in cyberspace infrastructure of all our sister services. Sure the Marines, Army and Navy will have deployed comm guys like TDCICAP, but I think the AF is going to be the 'techie' guys defending the networks, for the most part.

The one thing that bugs me most about some civvies is their 9 to 5 attitude. Makes it tough to complete the mission.

[TDMVPDPOY]

lol govt

maybe he should start with the incentives and bonuses these politicians and public workers get, maybe they should be on the same salary as ppl working in the same jobs in the private sector...

wtf do these rich ass clowns from their private businesses outside of politics still have access to govt pension when they are fully loaded and dont require that money from govt? im talkin about clowns who serve a few years in politics only...

[Winehole23]

Geithner has flip-flopped and is now promoting Warren for CFPA.That's not what i heard. Link, please?

[boutons_deux]

"That's not what i heard"

NPR, my drive time, had an audio of him effusing about what a perfect, intelligent, forward-thinking candidate she is. Quite amazing from his initial trashing.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/07/geithner-praises-elizabeth-warren-for-consumer-agency/1