Wednesday, August 1, 2012
What, According to Timothy Carney, McCain SHOULD Have Said in 2008
"Our economic crisis is real and requires action. But what the President and Senator Obama have proposed - borrowing nearly $1 trillion from our children and grandchildren and handing that money to the very financial institutions that created this mess - is unconscionable, unconstitutional, and un-American.....................................................................................Treasury Secretary Paulson, a former executive at Goldman Sachs, came to the U.S. Senate and told us that we had no time to lose, we have to ACT NOW and give the administration the power to create - out of thin air - hundreds of billions of dollars to give to Goldman Sachs and any other corporation that the administration thinks needs it. And now, Warren Buffett, the richest man in America and Brack Obama's economic advisor, has invested $5 billion in Goldman on the expectation of a tax-payer-funded bailout...................................................................................................I say that Secretary Paulson's friends at Goldman have had their chance. I say that the "Masters of the Universe" on Wall Street have shown their true colors. I say that Warren Buffet's investments are doing well enough. These millionaires don't need your money. These millionaires don't deserve your money. Barack Obama and George W. Bush think that they do. I say, OVER MY DEAD BODY."............Who knows. It might have worked.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Unfortunately, McCain signed onto the plan.
Yeah, he did indeed.
He's a Republican so that was not a surprise at all. bush signed on and signed off. Unfortunately Barack Obama signed on to the plan. He voted for it. But I don't remember him "proposing" it.
We could have gotten rid of the vampire squid Goldman Sachs and should have taken the opportunity to do so.
As for Timothy Carney, I assume his plan would have been to do nothing and plunge our financial system into chaos and our country into a deep and lasting depression? We should have nationalized the banks and bailed out the homeowners.
I know dmarks disagrees... he would have much preferred a depression.
I think Carney's plan would have ended up enriching the millionaires even more... after the depression hit they would have made out like bandits snapping up our nation's assets for pennies on the dollar.
Most Republicans opposed the bailouts.
The idea that we would have had a depression if we had not given a trillion in corporate welfare is silly. And stupid.
Nationalizing the banks... an idea fit for North Korea, but not a decent free society. Only a mindless fascist would propose this.
Bullshit, wd. People like Carney would actually make these corporations compete and not have them feeding off the government trough like Obama, Bush, and the rest of the crony capitalists.......And, no, he wouldn't do "nothing". He would severely limit the power of the FED, the entity that did more to put us over the cliff than any other.............Yeah, huh, dmarks - nationalize the banks and bail out people who took out loans that they couldn't afford. Sounds like a winning plan to me.
Nationalizing the banks would satisfy the megalomania and power lust of the ruling elites... another major step toward fascism.
Will said: "eah, huh, dmarks - nationalize the banks and bail out people who took out loans that they couldn't afford. Sounds like a winning plan to me."
Yes, and you point out the fact of the bad behavior of a lot of stupid people in taking out loans they could not afford.
dmarks: Yes, and you point out the fact of the bad behavior of a lot of stupid people in taking out loans they could not afford.
This from the same person who says he "stands with the voters". I'm sure many of these people vote, and instead of "standing with them" the arrogant dmarks calls them stupid.
dmarks: Nationalizing the banks would satisfy the megalomania and power lust of the ruling elites... another major step toward fascism.
Actually, it would have protected the 99 percent from the megalomania and power lust of the wealthy elites and been a step AWAY from fascism. And this is another clueless statement from dmarks that shows he has no idea what fascism is. Bailing out the banks was fascism, while nationalizing them would have been socialism.
Will: And, no, he wouldn't do "nothing". He would severely limit the power of the FED...
OK, then... you have confirmed what I said about what he would have done... nothing. Because limiting the power of the FED now wouldn't have prevented the housing crisis from occurring.
Will: nationalize the banks and bail out people who took out loans that they couldn't afford. Sounds like a winning plan to me.
It is quite chilling that Will sides with the Bansters who failed (on purpose) to do their due diligence in determining if the loans they were giving could be paid back... instead blaming the victims of fraud (in many cases).
But this talk of "stupid people" and blaming the victim is in line with dmarks' and Will's assertion that a lot of people are "losers" who "whine" for "handouts". It illustrates just what arrogant worshipers of the wealthy the two of them are.
WD said: "the arrogant dmarks calls them stupid."
There's nothing arrogant in pointing out that someone who stupidly takes out a loan they can't pay back is a bonehead.
"Actually, it would have protected the 99 percent from the megalomania and power lust of the wealthy elites and been a step AWAY from fascism"
You ignore the lessons of history and the definitions of words. This policy would have concentrated even more power in the hands of the most powerful.
"And this is another clueless statement from dmarks that shows he has no idea what fascism is. Bailing out the banks was fascism, while nationalizing them would have been socialism."
I am using the real definition.
"a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, (1) forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, (2) regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. "
Here you are advocating the part I have highlighted with (2).
"Bailing out the banks was fascism, while nationalizing them would have been socialism."
And the latter is a subset of fascism. The economic system of socialism is a subset of fascism and totalitarianism.
"But this talk of "stupid people" and blaming the victim...."
The people we are talking about are not 'victims'. They chose to engage in destructive behavior. This is a fact. No amount of your lying will change it.
is in line with dmarks' and Will's assertion that a lot of people are "losers" who "whine"""handouts".
There are such people, and you defend them. You think that idiots who knowingly take out loans they can't pay back are "victims". You think sluggards who do a lousy job and expect to get raises based on whining for them aren't losers. You expect workers to be paid according to some imaginary value determined far away and given handouts, instead of for the real value of the work right there.
Well, it is clear that we defend working people and those "It illustrates just what arrogant worshipers of the wealthy the two of them are.
Will and me and the rest are only condeming the worst behavior. You are celebrating it.
" It illustrates just what arrogant worshipers of the wealthy the two of them are."
So far there have been no posts or comments by Will, or any comments from me, that show any evidence of "worship" of the wealthy. This is clearly a phrase you have made up, and you like to say it, just like hyperactive terriers like to bark over and over for the fun of it. And it is about as meanungful.
Will, are you intentionally spelling his name "Brack" now, or is it accidental? I think I've seen it twice now.
I kind of like it: Brack Obama.
dmarks: ...nothing arrogant in pointing out that someone who stupidly takes out a loan they can't pay back...
Many people relied on advice from the banks that told them the COULD pay back the loans. They trusted the banks were being honest with them... because it was in their interest to. What they didn't realize is that the banks didn't give a crap if the loans were paid back or not... all they cared about was selling the loans to the financial institutions and then washing their hands of them.
dmarks: You ignore the lessons of history & the definitions...
You ignore the historical origin of the word. "Fascism" was invented to describe Mussolini's Rightwing government that handed off a lot of power to the corporations. When more power is placed in the hands of "we the people" (our government) that's Socialism.
dmarks: I am using the real definition.
You cherry pick a definition that removes the info regarding the origin of the term.
dmarks: ...regimenting all industry, commerce, etc.
The banks that fu*ked us over aren't "all industry". dmarks must be joking.
dmarks: The economic system of socialism is a subset of fascism & totalitarianism.
Hahahaha. dmarks' ignorance is astounding! Fascism & Socialism are on opposite ends of the political spectrum. One is NOT a "subset" of the other!
dmarks: The people we are talking about are not 'victims'... No amount of your lying will change it.
Mortgage fraud: In 2004, the FBI warned of an epidemic in mortgage fraud, an important credit risk of nonprime mortgage lending, which, they said, could lead to "a problem that could have as much impact as the S&L crisis". The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported in 1/2011 that: "...mortgage fraud... flourished in an environment of collapsing lending standards & lax regulation. The number of suspicious activity reports [possible fraud]... grew 20-fold between 1996 & 2005... & then more than doubled again between 2005 & 2009. ...losses resulting from fraud on mortgage loans made between 2005 & 2007 [is estimated to be] $112 billion. Lenders made loans that they knew borrowers could not afford & that could cause massive losses to investors... [End Wikipedia Excerpt]
Many home owners were victimized by the banksters. No amount of YOUR lying will change this documented fact.
dmarks: You think sluggards who do a lousy job & expect to get raises based on whining... aren't losers. [blah, blah]... instead of for the real value of the work...
I only advocate that people be paid the real value of their work. Speaking of which... people who make tens of millions of dollars... how can that possibly be the "real value" of their work?! Yet I expect dmarks will defend these outrageous over-inflated incomes.
dmarks: ...it is clear that we defend working people... Will & me... are only condemning the worst behavior. You are celebrating it.
You defend working people? Clearly dmarks is joking again. You point out a few cases of bad behavior, but instead of being truthful about the rarity of this, you lie and slander a large number of people... saying this type of behavior is more widespread than it actually is.
Also, I have NEVER "celebrated" this kind of bad behavior. It would be very bad for the economy if widespread. I condemn it.
dmarks: ...there have been no... comments... that show any evidence of "worship"... a phrase you have made up...
Almost every single one of your comments or posts contains wealthy worshiping language. You're quite like hyperactive terriers barking non-stop with your defense/deifying of the wealthy and slandering of working people.
wd, I believe that The FED (under the auspices of Mr. Greenspan) was absolutely the prime-mover of the housing crisis. If it wasn't for the FED's manipulating of the interest rates, there would have never been such a rush of money away from where it would have naturally gone and into the housing market (can you say, bubble?). Couple that with the exuberant amount of money printing and the creating of a bailout culture (the people at Fannie and Freddie and Countryside had absolutely zero fear of ever goin under) and it really was in fact a disaster waiting to happen.
And, yes, the bankers were greedy. But the bankers have always been greedy. It took the actions of the FED and the fact that Fannie and Freddie were buying up tens of billions in toxic loans from the "banksters" to thoroughly unleash that greed.
"I only advocate that people be paid the real value of their work. Speaking of which... people who make tens of millions of dollars... how can that possibly be the "real value" of their work?! Yet I expect dmarks will defend these outrageous over-inflated incomes."
WD, you are being so damned silly all the time.
If the person paying "tens of millions of dollars" and the employee agree it is the real fair value of the work, then it is. No amount of ignorant statements by you OR me will change this fact.
I am not defending over-inflated incomes at all. Just very high incomes paid for very high value work.
Sorry, but you (a lazy greedy sluggard who wants to get $10 an hour not by earning it, but as a handout) have no understanding of these matters.
"I only advocate that people be paid the real value of their work. Speaking of which... people who make tens of millions of dollars... how can that possibly be the "real value" of their work?! Yet I expect dmarks will defend these outrageous over-inflated incomes."
WD, do you understand compensation at all? How much would you pay a CEO who is responsible for multi-million dollar decisions? $50,000 a year?
For example, Google acquired Wildfire Interactive 4 days ago for $250,000,000. Don't you think the executives responsible for making the decision to buy another company are entitled to millions in compensation? If the decision is a good one, the company will benefit much more than they are compensated.
That's how compensation for value works. If you work at Dairy Queen, your labor is only worth a few dollars per hour depending on how many customers you serve per hour. When one decision you make is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, someone will be willing to pay you tens of millions in compensation.
Heathen asked: "WD, do you understand compensation at all? How much would you pay a CEO who is responsible for multi-million dollar decisions? $50,000 a year?"
Because WD is an arrogant fool know-it-all who makes wildly ignorant judgements about matters he knows nothing about.
Heathen said: "That's how compensation for value work"
Every time I bring up compensation for value, WD gets in a tizzy and argues against it.
He has, however, argued for compensation entirely unrelated to value or what the employee and worker think is fair.
For example, he has argued for:
1) The minimum wage. If an potential employee has skills that are worth $6.00 an hour (quite often teens and those starting out). WD would ban the employer from hiring this person, leaving him or her jobless. His policies force companies to fire people or never hire them at all.
2) Forced unionization. Never mind that most of the people in a typical auto plant never voted for the union. WD will support a forced "collective bargaining" against the will of the workers which will demand that the company lay off much of the workers in order to pay an astronomical wage which will drive the company into bankruptcy.
3) Living wages. Living for whom? Again an example of WD wanting to force employers to give massive unearned handouts to workers. A strong disincentive for hiring anyone.
" If you work at Dairy Queen, your labor is only worth a few dollars per hour depending on how many customers you serve per hour."
I talked about this to WD. He mumbled some incomprehensible thing about small business employers being "plutocrats", and that only outsiders can determine what a fair wage is. Not the people directly involved in the DQ.
Post a Comment