FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


One year ago tonight





handfleisch
Ohio and the rest of America was getting ready to make a big step forward, to elect a thinker, an African American, a reformer, a realist. Someone to steer the ship through the treacherous waters created by eight years of disastrous mismanagement. Bruce rocked the house too BTW




http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8728917
LumberJack
Still ALOT of work needs to be done. I do not think anything Obama has done with the economy has been in the economic interests of the United States... unfortunately, your politicians are particularly at the mercy of lobbyists and special interest groups. You may find what he has done so far interesting.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
ocalhoun
LumberJack wrote:
I do not think anything Obama has done with the economy has been in the economic interests of the United States...

Quite so, at least in the long term. Where are the promised regulatory reforms that would solve the problem that caused this little recession?
Quote:
unfortunately, your politicians are particularly at the mercy of lobbyists and special interest groups.

At their mercy? Not how I would word it. They're hardly adversarial; they cooperate together quite nicely, with neither group antagonizing the other.
Afaceinthematrix
ocalhoun wrote:
Quite so, at least in the long term. Where are the promised regulatory reforms that would solve the problem that caused this little recession?


Woah. Perhaps I do not know your views as well as I thought or perhaps they have changed... You're in favor of government regulation? That sounds a little like big government which is something that I thought you were against. I thought you'd be the type that's completely for a free market....


I however I agree with this... I'm under the opinion that we need big government and big government regulation.
LumberJack
ocalhoun wrote:

At their mercy? Not how I would word it. They're hardly adversarial; they cooperate together quite nicely, with neither group antagonizing the other.


I will disagree here and perhaps explain myself better. I think they are given too much say in the state of affairs. When you have a relatively small group, who is well funded, organized, and is able to get through the noise of Washington to push through their agenda it works against the public's interest. Especially, when a politician cannot ignore them because of threats to their funding and perhaps threats to jobs, etc. Cases in point (the Financial Industry, American Auto Industry). These two industries have cost the American Taxpayer billions and billions. They were allowed to run out of control, made terrible decisions and now everyone in your country is paying for it. There is a reason why they were allowed to hop along without anyone questioning it.

I thought it was a good it was a hot issue during the presidential election, unfortunately Obama has not followed through with his promise to end revolving doors for lobbyists and former officials in his administration. That was disappointing.
LumberJack
ocalhoun wrote:

Quite so, at least in the long term. Where are the promised regulatory reforms that would solve the problem that caused this little recession?


Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Woah. Perhaps I do not know your views as well as I thought or perhaps they have changed... You're in favor of government regulation? That sounds a little like big government which is something that I thought you were against. I thought you'd be the type that's completely for a free market....

I however I agree with this... I'm under the opinion that we need big government and big government regulation.


More government regulation will not solve anything nor prevent this from happening again. Our financial systems have become too large and too complex for the government to be able to control OR even understand how to legislate. I am going to go out on a limb here and argue the best thing that can be done is to take every bank and investment house that you consider "Too Big To Fail", and break them up like you did with AT&T in the 80's (the growth and development in the telecommunications industry was huge after that!). This way, government will actually have a fighting chance to be able to keep them in line.

Then whatever stupidity they decide to do, whether it is bad mortgages, over leveraging, leveraging their base deposits, they can reap the consequences of them and go bankrupt. Split them up, and keep them that way. It will send a message to Shareholders to hold their management accountable and that Americans won't bail them out. Even better it will increase competition throughout the industry.

There is one rule that I would change however and Commercial Banking should be bound to the same rules as the Insurance industry with respect to how they can invest their own money and their base deposits. That will prevent the over leveraging which we have seen.

Financial institutions are unique in they facilitate the operation of the economy, they should not be a huge part of growth in the economy. Yes, there should be special rules for them. However, creating a whole bunch more ineffective rules which people will find their way around will not help. Give the SEC what they need to enforce the rules we have and make sure they are enforcing them
ocalhoun
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Quite so, at least in the long term. Where are the promised regulatory reforms that would solve the problem that caused this little recession?


Woah. Perhaps I do not know your views as well as I thought or perhaps they have changed... You're in favor of government regulation? That sounds a little like big government which is something that I thought you were against. I thought you'd be the type that's completely for a free market....

I am a proponent of small government. However, this is a choice between two evils. You can prevent the problems with small amounts of interference, you you can fix the problems after they happen with large amounts of interference.

Three things I'd like to see, in particular:
1: Permanent reinstatement of 'outdated' economic regulations put in place after the Great Depression.
2: Modification of anti-trust legislation to prevent super-sizing of corporations. Make it impossible for any corporation to grow 'too big to fail'.
3: Accurate (uninvolved 3rd party) assessment of investment risks- especially of 'hot, new investments' that are being hyped up.

LumberJack wrote:
Especially, when a politician cannot ignore them because of threats to their funding and perhaps threats to jobs, etc.

They're all members of the same group!
The typical life-cycle:
1: High-placed corporate executive/CEO/CFO/director. (Make lots of money to give to those in phase 2 or pay to those in phase 3)
2: Election into office, and a short or long political career. (Write laws that give extra money and benefits to those in phase 1)
3: Retirement from politics, to become a lobbyist. (Encourage those in phase 2 to do 'their job'.)

Many politicians have very close ties with large corporations, often even formerly being on their payroll. (V.P. Cheney was still on corporate payroll through the first 4 years of his vice presidency!)
Many lobbyists are former politicians themselves, on the theory that they'll already have the 'connections' and 'relationships' needed for the job.
deanhills
LumberJack wrote:
Still ALOT of work needs to be done. I do not think anything Obama has done with the economy has been in the economic interests of the United States... unfortunately, your politicians are particularly at the mercy of lobbyists and special interest groups. You may find what he has done so far interesting.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
Enjoyed this posting Lumberjack and especially the Obameter. Very nice Website, also very informative.

I definitely agree with your point about Obama's economic decisions not having been in the economic interest of the United States, but specifically what do you mean by:
Quote:
at the mercy of lobbyists and special interest groups
Who are they?
atul2242
[/quote] Who are they?[/quote]

Includes the GM Food industry, The arms manufacturers special groups lobbying for Medical companies, insurance companies.....
ocalhoun
atul2242 wrote:

Includes the GM Food industry, The arms manufacturers special groups lobbying for Medical companies, insurance companies.....

Also,
Big agriculture
Oil/natural gas
Pharmaceutical
Banks/investment firms
Unions
Communications
et cetera.
standready
handfleisch wrote:
Ohio and the rest of America was getting ready to make a big step forward, to elect a thinker, an African American, a reformer, a realist. Someone to steer the ship through the treacherous waters created by eight years of disastrous mismanagement.


Another sad day in history. I will post more when I have time.
standready
Has this President made some fanastic changes already!
He gave cell phone with 70 minutes free each month to "poor" people. They sell the phones.
He gave bailout money to an insurance company. They gave him contributions.
He gave bailout money to banks he said were "to big to fail". They gave him contributions.
He gave bailout money to two auto manufacturers. One, since, has filed bankruptcy. Other, is not far from bankruptcy.
He gave "cash for clunkers". Most of that money went to overseas auto manufacturers.

Great changes! Your taxdollars blown away!

Let us see some good changes like:
Strip congress of their free health care and big pensions. Watch health care and social security really get fixed quickly when the decisions they make affect them too.
Flat income tax rate for all with NO deductions of any sort. Everyone pays equally.
BRING ALL OUR TROOPS HOME!!! Defend our borders. Let others take care of themselves.
ocalhoun
standready wrote:

BRING ALL OUR TROOPS HOME!!! Defend our borders. Let others take care of themselves.


Wasn't Afghanistan mainly an active defense of borders?
Attacking back at a country that attacked you would seem to be a defensive action.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Wasn't Afghanistan mainly an active defense of borders?
Exactly! As well as get to know the enemy (terrorists) on their home ground, and it being easier to gather the necessary intelligence in the Middle East about terrorist movements from the Middle East into the United States.
atul2242
[/quote]Exactly! As well as get to know the enemy (terrorists) on their home ground, and it being easier to gather the necessary intelligence in the Middle East about terrorist movements from the Middle East into the United States.[/quote]

Thereby creating more enemies and terrorists....
Afghanistan WAS a beautiful country before the US stepped in........
deanhills
atul2242 wrote:
Thereby creating more enemies and terrorists....
Afghanistan WAS a beautiful country before the US stepped in........
Depends on what the beauty refers to, but as far as I can recollect Afghanistan had quite a tough time under the Russians until the US stepped in in 2001. It is a needy country that is very poor, needs lots of assistance in terms of providing basic necessities, roads, infrastructure, education, medical care. It seems to have been able to survive as a pion in the hands of those who wish to control power in Afghanistan, Afghanistan being a very strategic landlocked area in central Asia. Right now it seems to be a key position in fighting terrorists as well as keeping Pakistan as stable as possible.

Why do the US get to be blamed all the time? I seem to recall that the British had occupied Afghanistan for quite a long time until 1919 when it allowed Afghanistan to take care of its own foreign affairs. The Russians were also quite busy from 1979 to 1989. Afghanistan rulers have never really been very capable of taking care of themselves, of should I reword it with Afghanistan rulers being overly capable of only looking after themselves to the detriment of their country and their people? Right now the new Afghanistan President seems to be doing very well indeed, thanks to the presence of the US. Hopefull lots of the US support for his administration will filter through to the Afghanistan people and construction of roads, infrastructure, hospitals and schools.
Related topics
*OFFICIAL* Which Browser do you use?
Who wants to turn off the 'net?
There's One Born Every Minute
Gigabyte to support four SLI graphics cards on one
Linux or Windows on your computer?!
The Matrix
Google Ads help fund Spyware ?
What is your graphics card?
Delete all over 3 week old posts
Very old news...but Michelle Branch writes angry letter
almost a year .......
The Shiny Brights @ HQ
Frihost Outages?
Obama's State of the Union 2012
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.