Obama to tout financial overhaul as good for economy
snippet: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.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.
"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 ins ution capable is the federal govt.
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.
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!
That's a bad thing?
I don't think so, but they will be raising with the "evil banks" because they won't loan money to "people that need it".
Less people applying for money and spending money they don't have?!?!
they won't loan money to "people that need it".
... already the case. The banks are ing 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.
the big banks, 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.
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.
And the evil capitalists will get blamed again. Not the regulators.
"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.
If the "free market protects itself" how do you explain monopolies?
Boutons, Fanny and Freddy were telling them..."We'll buy every bit of the 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 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.
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.
It's no longer free.
This is when regulation do need to control prices. That's for a commerce clause thread.
That Bush exploded the size of government.
If you say so Mr. Franken.That Bush exploded the size of government.
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.
you really just made this up didn't you?
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.
What about extending that to Obama, by GNP:That Bush exploded the size of government.
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
The article's there at your leisure.
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.What about extending that to Obama, by GNP:
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
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 lngrrrrThe article's there at your leisure.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
