Over A Million Families Destroyed!

[tombat1913]

Re: Over A Million U.S. Families Destroyed!

Over A Million U.S. Families Destroyed?

Oh, I thought you were talking about Iraq, where our government actually did destroy a million families.

Yeah, bummer people can't get paid for not working anymore. Life sure is rough in the empire.

[Sharky]

Re: Over A Million Families Destroyed!

1. Clean up the corruption.
2. Share what we have equitably, so that as many as possible can make it.
3. Build the foundation for a more productive, free and honest civilization.

Unfortunately, #2 is incompatible with #1 and #3.

Who determines "equitably"? Equitable for who? If you're going to hold a gun to the heads of people in certain groups to force them to "share" with others, that breeds corruption--and it's certainly not free or honest, nor are the people taking from others likely to care about being productive.

[tombat1913]

Re: Over A Million Families Destroyed!

And finally, what is with this fascination/fetish about the bending over, taking in the backside, grab ankles - references that I keep reading? Do people think that digressing adds creditability to their arguments?

What are you talking about?

[Camtender]

Re: Over A Million Families Destroyed!

What are you talking about?

That video most have come from Kalifornia?

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Over A Million Families Destroyed!

Who determines "equitably"?

What I wrote was incomplete, you're right. Fairness cannot be mandated top-down, especially not when the top is rotten.

We each individually determine what is equitable, to the extent that we choose.

We each encourage others to consider what is equitable, within the limits of our persuasive talents and their choice to listen.

Our leaders, if they were good (not the current crowd) would encourage us to so consider.

But it starts with each individual, acting responsibly.

I should not demand the full measure of Social Security or Medicare promised me when that means my children would have to pay an exorbitant proportion of their income in taxes to fund those payments. Nor I hope will my children refuse to pay any taxes whatsoever for Social Security on the grounds that it is not their problem.

As with people acting responsibly (if they did?) on the Titanic, with men helping women and children go first at risk of their own lives, this is not a central mandate. Rather it is a measure of the moral character of the people themselves.

This is all best done on the local level, through volunteer co-operation and neighbors helping neighbors. Only at the local level can we observe first hand the real measures of need and relative capacity to aid.

[Sharky]

Re: Over A Million Families Destroyed!

Fairness cannot be mandated top-down, especially not when the top is rotten.

We each individually determine what is equitable, to the extent that we choose.

Sounds good to me.

Support for individual rights will be a key requirement for any meaningful long-term solutions.

[flintlock]

Re: Over A Million Families Destroyed!

Are those the cry of revolutionaries arousing the citizenry, or scare tactics to drive us into submission?

From what I recall of the way they rammed the TARP legislation through, we're submitting, not revolting.

What I hear on the Main Stream Media does not remind me of the words of Jefferson or Patrick Henry.

You're correct. The TARP legislation should have been the final straw. That was grand theft on an unprecedented scale.

[raja]

Re: Over A Million Families Destroyed!

Are those the cry of revolutionaries arousing the citizenry, or scare tactics to drive us into submission?

What I hear on the Main Stream Media does not remind me of the words of Jefferson or Patrick Henry.

Check out Daniel Radigan on MSNBC, or how about this:

Economists: Another Financial Crisis on the Way

Nonpartisan Group Led by Nobel Winner Calls for Stronger Financial Reforms
By MATTHEW JAFFE
March 2, 2010 ABC News

Even as many Americans still struggle to recover from the country's worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, another crisis – one that will be even worse than the current one – is looming, according to a new report from a group of leading economists, financiers, and former federal regulators.

In the report, the panel, which includes Rob Johnson of the United Nations Commission of Experts on Finance and bailout watchdog Elizabeth Warren, warns that financial regulatory reform measures proposed by the Obama administration and Congress must be beefed up to prevent banks from continuing to engage in high-risk investing that precipitated the near-collapse of the U.S. economy in 2008.

The report warns that the country is now immersed in a "doomsday cycle" wherein banks use borrowed money to take massive risks in an attempt to pay big dividends to shareholders and big bonuses to management – and when the risks go wrong, the banks receive taxpayer bailouts from the government.

Without more stringent reforms, "another crisis – a bigger crisis that weakens both our financial sector and our larger economy – is more than predictable, it is inevitable," Johnson says in the report, commissioned by the nonpartisan Roosevelt Institute.

The institute's chief economist, Nobel Prize-winner Joseph Stiglitz, calls the report "an important point of departure for a debate on where we are on the road to regulatory reform."

The report blasts some of Washington's key players. Johnson writes, "Our government leaders have shown little capacity to fix the flaws in our market system." Two other panelists, Simon Johnson, a professor at MIT, and Peter Boone of the Centre for Economic Performance, voiced similar criticisms.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner "oversaw policy as the bubble was inflating," write Johnson and Boone, and "these same men are now designing our 'rescue.'"

The study says that "In 2008-09, we came remarkably close to another Great Depression. Next time we may not be so 'lucky.' The threat of the doomsday cycle remains strong and growing," they say. "What will happen when the next shock hits? We may be nearing the stage where the answer will be – just as it was in the Great Depression – a calamitous global collapse."

The panelists call for major banks to maintain liquid capital of at least 15 to 25 percent of their assets, the enactment of stiffer consequences for executives of bailout recipients and for government officials to start breaking up firms that grow too big.

In the report, Elizabeth Warren, who was chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel, reiterates her calls for an independent agency to protect consumers from abusive Wall Street practices.

"While manufacturers have developed iPods and flat-screen televisions, the financial industry has perfected the art of offering mortgages, credit cards and check overdrafts laden with hidden terms that obscure price and risk," Warren writes. "Good products are mixed with dangerous products, and consumers are left on their own to try to sort out which is which. The consequences can be disastrous."

Frank Partnoy, a panelist from the University of San Diego, claims that "the balance sheets of most Wall Street banks are fiction." Another panelist, Raj Date of the Cambridge Winter Center for Financial Institutions Policy, argues that government-backed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have become "needlessly complex and irretrievably flawed" and should be eliminated. The report also calls for greater competition among credit rating agencies and increased regulation of the derivatives market, including requiring that credit-default swaps be traded on regulated exchanges.

With the Senate Banking Committee, led by Chris Dodd, D-Conn., poised to unveil its financial regulatory reform proposal sometime in the next week, the report calls on Congress to enact reforms strong enough to prevent another meltdown.

"Sen. Dick Durbin once said the banks 'owned' the Senate," says Johnson. "The next few weeks will determine whether or not that statement is true."

In response to the report, a spokesman for the Treasury Department told ABC News that the administration's regulatory reform proposals would be the most significant Wall Street overhaul in generations.

"We laid out our strong principles of reform last June and we have been fighting every day since to see them enacted in law," said Treasury spokesman Andrew Williams. "While we have a tough fight ahead, we are getting close to seeing Congress pass the most significant overhaul of the financial sector in our lifetimes."

[raja]

Re: Over A Million Families Destroyed!

Who determines "equitably"? Equitable for who?

The People determine this through the political process, as described in the Constitution.

If you're going to hold a gun to the heads of people in certain groups to force them to "share" with others, that breeds corruption--and it's certainly not free or honest, nor are the people taking from others likely to care about being productive.

Like we don't have corruption now?

No, we're not going to force them to share . . . we're going to prevent them from stealing. Ummm . . . like not letting them gamble recklessly, then get bailed out with taxpayer money when they lose -- you know, stuff like that :rolleyes:

Free does not mean allowing the greedy, compassionless Financial Elite turn us all into Debt Slaves. Free means freedom from Lifetime Servitude under the thumb of the top 1% wealthy parasites.

IMO, you would profit from reading more Hudson.
I'm curious . . . do you work for Goldman-Sachs? ;)

[Rajiv]

American reliance on government at all-time high

From the Washington Times - American reliance on government at all-time high

The so-called "Great Recession" has left Americans depending on the government dole like never before.

Without record levels of welfare, unemployment and other government benefits as well as tax cuts last year, the income of U.S. households would have plunged by an astonishing $723 billion — more than four times the record $167 billion drop reported last month by the Commerce Department.

Moreover, for the first time since the Great Depression, Americans took more aid from the government than they paid in taxes.

The figures show the devastating results of the massive job losses last year and indicate that the economic recovery that began last summer is tenuous and has a long way to go before many Americans resume life as normal, analysts said.

Economic growth typically depends on consumer spending, which is fed by wages, rents, interest and other forms of income. But the tentative revival of consumer spending in the second half of last year appears to have been fed largely by an extraordinary flood of government spending, as growth in other kinds of income has disappeared.

"Governmental support was critical in keeping the economy, particularly consumer spending, from completely collapsing during the crisis," said Harm Bandholz, an economist at Unicredit Markets. He said he is concerned that so much of the economic rebound is a result of government spending rather than a revival of private income and jobs. That situation is unsustainable, he said, because the government has had to borrow massively to prop up the economy and cannot continue that binge for long.

While wages and other job-related income fell by a record $206 billion last year to $7.84 trillion, transfer payments from the government such as unemployment checks and Social Security burgeoned by $231 billion to $2.1 trillion. Meanwhile, the amount of taxes that individual Americans paid plummeted by $325 billion to $2.1 trillion as a result of middle-class tax cuts and because nearly 6 million people were thrown out of work and are no longer paying payroll taxes.

Commerce economists said last year's unprecedented drop of $256 billion in private wages — the mainstay of consumers in ordinary times — was particularly dramatic, and was more than 40 times larger than the drop in wages during the entire 2001 recession.

Equally dramatic, a measure of income that closely tracks the ravages of the recession also plummeted by an unprecedented $384 billion. That measure excludes transfer payments and adjusts for inflation. It has stabilized at $9.1 trillion since the middle of last year, in a sign that the worst of the job and income losses are over.

While most of the government benefits — including Social Security, welfare, Medicaid, food stamps and regular unemployment benefits — are sent automatically to those who qualify, Congress is debating an extension of some benefits enacted as part of the stimulus package last year. Those include jobless benefits and health insurance subsidies for the unemployed.

The Senate on Friday failed to pass an extension of jobless benefits for up to 99 weeks for workers in states with high unemployment rates. Long-term jobless benefits expired Sunday, leaving many Americans dependent on those payments in limbo. With more than 8 million workers laid off during the recession, unemployment benefits have quadrupled from $34 billion in January 2008 to $124 billion at the end of last year.

"Millions of Americans are now relying on unemployment benefits as their only source of income other than food stamps," said Ross Eisenbrey, vice president of the Economic Policy Institute. "They are unable to find work because there are more than six job seekers for every opening. There is literally nothing that most of these workers can do to get a job today. Unemployment benefits are often the only way they can make ends meet for their families and keep a roof over their heads."

The proposed extension in long-term jobless aid was held up Friday by Sen. Jim Bunning, Kentucky Republican, who objected that it added $10 billion to the budget deficit. As a result of record U.S. government borrowing, total debt in the United States has soared to an all-time high of 370 percent of yearly economic output, far exceeding its peak of 300 percent during the Great Depression.

"If we cant find $10 billion somewhere for a bill that everybody in this body supports, we will never pay for anything," Mr. Bunning said.

Democrats vowed to renew the unemployment aid this week to minimize disruption for more than 1 million jobless people who would begin to exhaust their extended benefits on Monday.

"The simple fact of the matter is that this is an emergency situation and should be treated as such," said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat. "The most vulnerable families in America are going to suffer because of this political decision by one senator. … We will be back, we will try to get this done. And to those families: Hang in there."

The massive shift into dependence on the government, while essential in promoting an economic revival last year, has postponed a reckoning for many consumers who went too far into debt to maintain their lifestyles during the boom years, Mr. Bandholz said.

While the government was lavishing aid, banks were cutting credit to consumers by a record $250 billion, nearly as much as the amount consumers gained from government transfer payments.

"This shift only postpones a solution to the problem" by substituting government debt for consumer debt, Mr. Bandholz said. "These elevated debt loads will at least result in sluggish growth rates for the time being — and if the problem is not tackled with determination, it might very well lead to another crisis."

Some economists say the big shift toward dependence on government spending and borrowing is only temporary.

"Sure, temporary government transfers played a role this past year. But that's OK," said Bernard Baumohl, chief global economist at the Economic Outlook Group. He noted that Americans also accumulated a record amount of savings last year as they stowed away funds out of fear of losing their jobs.

The increase in savings now enables many consumers to increase spending, while the 90 percent of workers who still have jobs can spend more because they are accumulating more income from overtime hours, he said.

"It's a combination and interaction of all these forces — not just one — that will promote more future spending by households and keep the economy going later without government aid," he said.

Jobless benefits and other welfare spending for the unemployed will start to decline when job growth returns. Many economists predict that employment will increase this spring or summer in the next stage of the recovery. Because of bleak job prospects during the recession, some people were forced to go more permanently on the government dole.

In particular, many workers who were nearing retirement age and got laid off started drawing Social Security benefits. The number of retirees taking Social Security at age 62 grew by a record 19 percent in the past year, helping to push up Social Security outlays by $100 billion. Analysts expect those spending levels to stay high and continue to increase as more baby boomers retire.

[Sharky]

Re: Over A Million Families Destroyed!

The People determine this through the political process, as described in the Constitution.

Oh, right. In other words, by hiring a bunch of lobbyists to influence Congress to pass legislation that favors my gang?

Like we don't have corruption now?

Exactly my point.

No, we're not going to force them to share . . . we're going to prevent them from stealing. Ummm . . . like not letting them gamble recklessly, then get bailed out with taxpayer money when they lose -- you know, stuff like that

How are you going to do that?

BTW, why do you suppose the banks gambled like they did in the first place?

Free does not mean allowing the greedy, compassionless Financial Elite turn us all into Debt Slaves. Free means freedom from Lifetime Servitude under the thumb of the top 1% wealthy parasites.

It's more than just the top 1% wealthy that are parasites. Seems like most supposed "debt slaves" were sure enjoying themselves quite a bit while times were good.

IMO, you would profit from reading more Hudson.
I'm curious . . . do you work for Goldman-Sachs?

I've ready plenty of Hudson. He identifies some of the problems correctly, but in the end he's just yet another thinly veiled socialist.

Goldman? Like they would want to have anything even remotely to do with someone like me, who is anti-corruption, pro-individual rights, pro-freedom and anti-fascism.

[raja]

Re: Over A Million Families Destroyed!

Originally Posted by Sharky in bold/italics:

Oh, right. In other words, by hiring a bunch of lobbyists to influence Congress to pass legislation that favors my gang?

No . . . by voting for elective representatives that will represent the interests of The People.

raja
No, we're not going to force them to share . . . we're going to prevent them from stealing. Ummm . . . like not letting them gamble recklessly, then get bailed out with taxpayer money when they lose -- you know, stuff like that

How are you going to do that?

Off the top of my head, here are some suggestions:

* Reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act
* Break up Too-Big-To-Fail Banks
* Progressive income tax
* Stopping fraud, i.e., prohibit Goldman-Sachs and their like from selling their clients products they know will fail, then turning around and shorting them
* Independent regulator boards
* Close the revolving door between Washington and Wall Street
* Divest corporations of personhood

BTW, why do you suppose the banks gambled like they did in the first place?

Because they knew that their buddies in government would bail them out. It's a "free market" until they lose, then it's corporate welfare.

It's more than just the top 1% wealthy that are parasites. Seems like most supposed "debt slaves" were sure enjoying themselves quite a bit while times were good.

The only reason JoeSixPack was allowed temporary parasitehood was to allow The Financial Elite parasites to become richer. Now, JoeSixPack is unemployed, out on the street or has lost his pension or life savings, while the Financial Elite are still collecting record bonuses. JoeSixPack was a pawn of the professional parasites -- Banksters and Wall Street.

I've ready plenty of Hudson. He identifies some of the problems correctly, but in the end he's just yet another thinly veiled socialist.

You, and far too many others in this country, persist with the simplistic sloganeering. Life -- and certainly government -- is not as black and white as "socialist" vs. "capitalist". There is a balance between the interests of The People, and the interests of the Wealthy Elite (or you could say, workers and bosses). For any governmental system to work, it needs to accommodate both sides.

Today, the shift in wealth to the top and the coming Debt Servitude of The People indicate that the balance has shifted too far in the Elite direction. That has to change.

Goldman? Like they would want to have anything even remotely to do with someone like me, who is anti-corruption, pro-individual rights, pro-freedom and anti-fascism.

The Goldman philosophy is free markets . . . in other words, give Wall Street the freedom to do what it wants. Businessmen have the individual rights to do with their money what they want (even if it means causing a global collapse). You may be anti-fascist, but you are certainly pro-oligarch. There's not much difference between rule by a Dictator and rule by an Elite. As for the corruption part . . . sure, Goldman is makes its profits "legally" through regulatory capture. Why dirty your hands with illegal acts, when you can accomplish your goals with the help of the Politician Enablers?

If anyone from Goldman is reading these posts, I'm sure you'll soon get a call from a Goldman recruiter with "an offer you can't refuse". ;)

[karim0028]

Re: Over A Million Families Destroyed!

[/INDENT]The Goldman philosophy is free markets . . . in other words, give Wall Street the freedom to do what it wants. Businessmen have the individual rights to do with their money what they want (even if it means causing a global collapse). You may be anti-fascist, but you are certainly pro-oligarch. There's not much difference between rule by a Dictator and rule by an Elite. As for the corruption part . . . sure, Goldman is makes its profits "legally" through regulatory capture. Why dirty your hands with illegal acts, when you can accomplish your goals with the help of the Politician Enablers?

If anyone from Goldman is reading these posts, I'm sure you'll soon get a call from a Goldman recruiter with "an offer you can't refuse". ;)

I like that line The difference between what is legal and illegal is decreed by politicians... If you control the politicians you in essence make up your own laws... Lest we forget, Alcohol was illegal last century, today its not.....

Mary Jane is currently illegal and i would venture a bet that in the next couple of years, it may not be....

[Sharky]

Re: Over A Million Families Destroyed!

No . . . by voting for elective representatives that will represent the interests of The People.

How is that different than what people have already been doing? Have they been intentionally voting for people who don't represent their interests? Have people who would represent their interests ever even been on the ballot?

Off the top of my head, here are some suggestions:
* Reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act
* Break up Too-Big-To-Fail Banks
* Progressive income tax

Didn't we have exactly those things 50 yrs ago? Didn't seem to help much.

* Stopping fraud, i.e., prohibit Goldman-Sachs and their like from selling their clients products they know will fail, then turning around and shorting them

I agree with this, although I would say that one place to start is by prosecuting the fraud that has already been perpetrated.

Because they knew that their buddies in government would bail them out. It's a "free market" until they lose, then it's corporate welfare.

In other words, without government collusion and support, it wouldn't have been possible. Do you agree? If so, how can more government be the solution?

The only reason JoeSixPack was allowed temporary parasitehood was to allow The Financial Elite parasites to become richer. Now, JoeSixPack is unemployed, out on the street or has lost his pension or life savings, while the Financial Elite are still collecting record bonuses.

Yes, some are definitely out on the street. However, others are living in very nice homes without paying their mortgage, while still others turned over one home after the other and made a ton of money in the process.

My point wasn't that many people didn't get screwed; it's that more than just the bankers made out well from the housing boom.

You, and far too many others in this country, persist with the simplistic sloganeering. Life -- and certainly government -- is not as black and white as "socialist" vs. "capitalist". There is a balance between the interests of The People, and the interests of the Wealthy Elite (or you could say, workers and bosses). For any governmental system to work, it needs to accommodate both sides.

Yes, you're right; to me, it is black and white: you're either free, or you're not.

The Goldman philosophy is free markets . . . in other words, give Wall Street the freedom to do what it wants. Businessmen have the individual rights to do with their money what they want (even if it means causing a global collapse). You may be anti-fascist, but you are certainly pro-oligarch. There's not much difference between rule by a Dictator and rule by an Elite. As for the corruption part . . . sure, Goldman is makes its profits "legally" through regulatory capture. Why dirty your hands with illegal acts, when you can accomplish your goals with the help of the Politician Enablers?

Actually, the Goldman philosophy is not free markets at all. Their approach is to get government on their side and to sell it to the world as "free markets," when it's the complete opposite. Instead, they get government to arrange for bailouts; loan guarantees; protection from prosecution against fraud and other crimes such as insider trading and market manipulation; pressure from government officials that causes competitors like Merrill and Lehman to vanish; establishing monopolies around things like rating agencies and primary bond dealers, etc, etc. Without their marriage to government (which is a form of fascism), none of the crap they've pulled would have been possible.

Without the "political enablers," as you called them, the oligarchy couldn't exist--at least certainly not in anything close to its current form, which is built on a foundation of corruption.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Over A Million Families Destroyed!

Didn't we have exactly those things 50 yrs ago? Didn't seem to help much.

2010 - 50 yrs = 1960. Many would hold 1960 to be the (economically) golden age of post-war America. Your point works against your argument; those things are demonstrated to have helped quite a bit.

In other words, without government collusion and support, it wouldn't have been possible. Do you agree? If so, how can more government be the solution?

The fact that bad government exists and does harm is not an argument against working towards a good government or having one.

Does your argument extend all the way, having less and less government until we get to lawless anarchy? If you truly believe this, I presume you live in Somalia, or the Ivory Coast, or Sri Lanka, or Myanmar, or the Democratic Republic of the Congo where there has been essentially no government for many years and your theory is practiced every day.