"The Quiet Coup"

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Levin

Did we read the same article? Talk about overreaction. Put down your pitchforks.

The financial industry did not take over the government, and the article doesn't say as much. The coup came in the accretion of importance to the nation's economic well-being; that is, the banks became too big to fail, and so they could hold politicians hostage. "If we go down, we're all going down, Mr. Hoover." That's the coup that's taken place.

The fix is easy. "Bust the trusts," so to say, by delineating banking activities among separate types of organizations like we had before.

You conspiracy theorists need to give it a rest.

that's not what it says. you are dumb.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

"Ties" does not equal "beholden." I find it very amusing that just a month ago, people like Arch were saying that Wall Street clearly hated Obama and his policies because "look at the Dow!" Now the story is that Wall Street is Obama's puppeteer. The truth is much more in the middle of those two extremes.

On top of that, Archaea's always been crying about financial regulation. Then he comes across this article about the destructiveness of deregulation and says, "Oh yeah, that's what I was thinking."

But anyway, an oligarchy is by definition ruling. Ties or beholden, whatever it is, the fact is, they've been influencing policy on the ground. That's why Clinton has always maintained keeping good relations with Wall Street is important. That's why Paulson fought against limiting CEO pay in the bailout.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

On top of that, Archaea's always been crying about financial regulation. Then he comes across this article about the destructiveness of deregulation and says, "Oh yeah, that's what I was thinking."

But anyway, an oligarchy is by definition ruling. Ties or beholden, whatever it is, the fact is, they've been influencing policy on the ground. That's why Clinton has always maintained keeping good relations with Wall Street is important. That's why Paulson fought against limiting CEO pay in the bailout.

Of course they influence policy. So does the Pentagon. So does the AARP. That does not make the administration beholden to them. Ironic that much of the policies we are discussing (TARP, avoiding limitations on CEO pay, etc.) were under Bush and not Obama. Compare the criticisms on the economic front by Waters, et al, against Bush and Obama. Amusing.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

that's not what it says. you are dumb.

I think he read the Reader's Digest version.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Of course they influence policy. So does the Pentagon. So does the AARP. That does not make the administration beholden to them. Ironic that much of the policies we are discussing (TARP, avoiding limitations on CEO pay, etc.) were under Bush and not Obama. Compare the criticisms on the economic front by Waters, et al, against Bush and Obama. Amusing.

Yeah, but not to the tune of 40% of GDP.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Of course they influence policy. So does the Pentagon. So does the AARP. That does not make the administration beholden to them. Ironic that much of the policies we are discussing (TARP, avoiding limitations on CEO pay, etc.) were under Bush and not Obama. Compare the criticisms on the economic front by Waters, et al, against Bush and Obama. Amusing.

A desperate argument when you have to resort to "Waters hated Bush, but should have hated him more."

That's an admission that the country is explicitly FUBAR at this point.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

A desperate argument when you have to resort to "Waters hated Bush, but should have hated him more."

That's an admission that the country is explicitly FUBAR at this point.

I've never seen anybody so enamored with another individual as Cali is of Obama. I wonder if he has an altar to him and prays to him in the morning.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I've never seen anybody so enamored with another individual as Cali is of Obama. I wonder if he has an altar to him and prays to him in the morning.

What about Hinckley and Jodie Foster?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

Yeah, but not to the tune of 40% of GDP.

You make it sound like they gave away 40% of GDP to the financial sector for nothing in return. That just isn't true. I don't know that the 40% number is accurate with respect to Obama's commitments (he isn't responsible for TARP, but be is responsible for the stimulus package and PPIP), but regardless, the financial commitments have been investments much more than "bailouts." Those investments have come with heavy strings attached, so much so that the "oligarchy" which Obama is supposedly beholden to can't wait to pay the funds back (which the government would love, by the way).

The government has taken equity in the entities it has funded in the form of warrants and preferred stock. A recent analysis by the CBO indicated that, with respect to TARP (Bush's plan), the US got equity worth about $.66 for each $1.00 it invested. PPIP is designed to avoid that kind of valuation gap.

I simply find it amusing that Arch and Waters trot out the "beholden to the financial oligarchy" with Obama when Obama is actually taking many steps that Wall Street hasn't "approved."

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

What about Hinckley and Jodie Foster?

Well done.