Obama’s 2nd Term Priorities
- By Simple Politiks
- 2 January, 2013
- 41 Comments
NEWS
President Barack Obama made an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” last Sunday on December 30, 2012. During this interview the host David Gregory spent the first block of time discussing the fiscal cliff. As I write this on late Tuesday night (January 1, 2013), a deal has finally been agreed upon. My next post will dissect the deal in great detail so expect a new post in a day or two. For now I am going to very quickly concentrate on the priorities President Obama articulated for his second term in the White House.
After the first block of time David Gregory asked the President numerous questions regarding the policies he intends to consolidate his efforts on. In this interview he spoke of four primary policies:
- “Fixing the broken immigration system”
- Stabilize the economy, encourage growth
- Make advancements in energy while keeping the environment in mind
- Preventing the tax rate of middle class Americans from going up (his #1 priority)
In addition to speaking about his priorities, President Obama briefly touched upon other topics as well: cabinet nominations, the Benghazi investigation and gun control are included.
I’ve attached a video of the interview below in case you’re interested in watching it for yourself.
Only time will tell how these goals measure up against the next four years. I’m skeptical of improvement within our deficit problem because neither side is willing to make appropriate cuts… And if that doesn’t happen then I’m not sure how long any real growth can last. But this is a discussion for a later post. I’ll address any disappointments I have with President Obama’s policies for the second term as they come up in Congress and the media. The sole purpose of this post is to give everyone an idea of what to expect the President to focus on in the coming years. Hope it was helpful to those who didn’t know, be sure to check out the other posts and watch out for the upcoming post about the fiscal cliff deal.
Take care.
Copyright © 2013
Hello from an English guy who lives in France. I’ve been following the Fiscal Cliff shenanigans as have many others on this side of the pond, and the press has given it a lot of coverage. It seems to me that all that we have here is a highly unsatitisfactory compromise which doesn’t deal with either the slump or America’s long term prospects. Obama will have to get much tougher if he is to push his aganda through but I suspect that he may be a little too consensual and apt to compromise more than he should. Time will tell.
As for the Republicans, the overwhelming opinion here is that they have a dreadful tendency towards bloody-minded and highly-destructive obstructivism for the sake of it. An example of this kind of viewpoint is to be found in The Guardian, in an article with a couldn’t-be-clearer headline which reads ‘Fiscal Cliff reveals how dysfunctional Republican nihilism makes politics’. Here’s the URL if you like;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/01/fiscal-cliff-dysfunctional-republican-nihilism
Oh and just a quick word about your visit to my blog yesterday. It was symbolic in that I had only just finished creating the blog and had just put up my first post, so your ‘like’ was the very first on my brand new blog. Thanks very much, appreciated.
Have an excellent day,
Frip
Great, a European perspective on things is always appreciated.
I don’t think this compromise really solves anything either. Our biggest short term problem is obviously the economy but the long term debt problem is even worse. This compromise hardly puts us on the right path in terms of cutting the necessary spending from entitlements and other areas like the military. Unfortunately everything will inevitably be cut in the long run… It’s just a matter of when. It seems they’ve kicked the can down the road with this compromise.
I couldn’t agree more about the Republicans inefficiency. I actually just wrote something about that a few days ago called “The Future of the Republican Party?”. Check it out if you’re interested!
Well it’s an honor to be your first like, Frip! Best of luck with your blog, hopefully I’ll see you around again.
I cannot agree with you more when you say that you are “skeptical of improvement because neither side is willing to make appropriate cuts.” As an over-educated, underemployed graduate with a doctorate degree and student loans that I will be paying until I take my last breath, I have come to recognize that the parties seem ever less willing to compromise. I worry about not just my future, but the future of our nation.
The student loan debt is growing out of control, I wish you the best of luck with yours. Thanks for your kind support and please feel free to stop by again or subscribe.
The problem lies in universities, even Tier I Research Facilities, selling hope to students as long as they sign on the dotted line. We’re not afraid of hard work, though. We’ll find a way. -and you can count on that subscription!
First to Simple Politiks: Thanks for the like on my post regarding generalizations.
To Allison Borda The primary issue isn’t whether we raise taxes or cut spending, but the philosophical ideology that drives our country. You may think what I’m about to say is crazy, but if you think about it rationally, I think you’ll find that no one can muster an argument against my position. The point is that, we, Americans, are dangerously addicted to other people’s money — to stealing. Our current tax system continues to over-burden those that have the means to drive our economy to prosperity, namely the wealthy. Think about these statistics: The Top 10% make some 43% of the money in this country, but pay over 70% of the income taxes at a rate of some 18%. Even worse, the top 1% make about 17% of the income while paying close to 37% of the income taxes at a rate of some 24%. This compares to the bottom 50% that make some 14% of the income while paying only a little over 2% in income taxes at a rate of just under 2%. I don’t know about you but this isn’t fair by any definition to the wealth, particularly in view of the fact that the wealthy are exempted from benefitting from most government programs such as Medicaid, welfare, food stamps, earned income tax credit, and student loan interest deductions among others. Some have argued that the rich can afford it so they should pay more, but this then ignores moral principals, namely the principal that no one should steal. And it doesn’t matter whether we vote on the taxes or not. Would you allow a vote on woman’s right to vote? Of course not. There are inalienable rights such as free speech, an American Citizens’ right to vote, freedom of religion, etc. And, I strongly believe that the right to one’s own income and wealth should be an inalienable right. This is Just. On the other hand, if someone wants to argue that affordability should be the standard of fairness when people deal with each other, instead of Justice and logic, then we have other issues that we must think about that I believe strongly corrupts our moral standing. For example, if someone needs a kidney, shall we allow the forced removal of a kidney from a healthy individual since the healthy individual can afford to lose one? The arguments for why we cannot use affordability as a argument for dealing with human interactions is almost boundless. So, you may ask, what is the solution. If you think about it carefully, social programs in this country are nothing more than forced charity. Given that the private sector, in general, does a pretty good job of managing charitable donations, I would argue that social programs should be privatized and the government should only fund three things that benefit all: 1) Self-defense, 2) Infrastructure, and 3) Education. This way, we can dramatically lower tax burdens on the wealthy who will then have the right to choose what they do with their own income as it should be. If the rich want to invest then they can do so to spur innovation and create jobs. If they believe that their money is best spent by donating to charity then they can do that. This way no one is subject to extortion, we don’t circumvent morality, and WE ALL get to not only choose our own path, but also exercise our own beliefs. If someone were to argue that the rich didn’t make their money on their own then I would ask, did the poor make their money on their own and, if not, what is their obligation to others? I believe that everyone made their money on their own, so everyone should be able to keep as much of it as possible. Also, I would ask who specifically helped people make their money if no one makes their money on their own? Soldiers, teachers, garbage collections people? Don’t these people get paid for their services? My whole dissertation is way too long to list here, but if you’d like to know more, please read my book, “… Under the Constitution with Liberty and Justice for ALL.” It is available at http://www.createspace.com/3978962. I hope this was helpful in helping you understand the issues our country faces today.
Did you really just ask if the poor people made their money on their own? What money? Did you know that in Texas, where I live, a food service worker receives $2.13/hour? Last night, I ate at a buffet, where most people don’t ever leave a tip on the table. I watched a section attendant literally get on his hands and knees to clean up the mess left by a large group of people, that (surprise!) did not leave a tip. I found out that the man has 3 children. How do you suppose he supports a family with 3 children on $2.13/hour? Now, let’s compare the effort he puts into his work to the effort of a corporate bigwig who makes over a million dollars annually, spends his day sitting on a big leather chair in a fancy high rise office, planning “team building” exercises that are thinly veiled excuses to socialize and eat fancy lunches on the company’s dime. Oh, and Mr. Bigwig is going to mis-manage the company and ask for a handsome bail-out from the government while still expecting a hefty bonus for the year. You want to talk about stealing? Let’s talk about fair wages for real work with an equal amount of effort and earnest outcomes!
Oh, and soldiers? I am an Army-brat. My dad is a disabled Vietnam vet. You think he was paid for his services? Yeah. He was paid for his lost health. Sure. Did you serve? There is no way you can compensate someone for changing who they are. Unless you have been to combat, you can’t talk. I could care less about your dissertation. Look into a wounded soldiers eyes while they are having a flashback and tell me you think they’ve received their due.
Now, as to freeing businesses to hire employees so they can pay their debts. Let’s say that businesses could afford to hire one or two more employees. It won’t be at the level that will help college graduates like myself be able to pay off student loans. I was sold a bill of goods by an entity I was socialized to trust, our education system. I was told that if I got a good education, I could earn 150-250k per year. I don’t even make a third of the lower end of that sum. None of the businesses that will be helped by these tax cuts will be making those kinds of hires.
Thank you so much for helping me understand the issues our country faces today. Clearly, I have been misinformed. Maybe if I could get out of the office more, I would be more in-touch with the “real-world.”
Allison Boroda, I’m quite painfully aware of hardships. My father’s struggle to survive through a war, get an education and make it in society is far more compelling than I could outline, so please get off your high horse. He almost starved to death. In his early career, he had a choice between taking public transportation or eating lunch but not both. Look, what you don’t seem to understand is that the current plight of many poor people today is due to the never ending perpetuation of socialism in our country. What incentive do people have to keep on making money and reinvesting it if people like you want to keep on taking it away? Next, how many CEOs and CFOs have you met and socialized with? Personally, I know dozens of CEOs, CFOs, COOs and other so called big-wigs. For you to accuse them all in a wholesale manner of being crooks is not only a huge admission of your own ignorance, but also your nasty, spiteful nature. It is people like you that can’t think beyond the tip of your nose that is choking our country to death. Just because you couldn’t realize your own ambitions and feel “fooled” by others into getting an education, this is no reason to steal from others. If you were “fooled” then it demonstrates that you are pretty dull in intelligence, easily fooled, or you don’t have your head buried in the sand and can’t think beyond your own needs and ambitions. The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of people who come from absolute poverty and “make” it in this country. Granted, this is becoming more and more difficult, but this doesn’t have to do with lack of funding from the government, but not enough incentive to want to do this. Finally, yes, there are poor, unfortunate people and many of them may not deserve to be in that situation, but why are you making this the responsibility of the rich/wealthy segment of our society? Did they force these people to be born? Did the rich/wealthy force them not to study? Did the rich/wealthy force them to drop out of school? Did the rich/wealthy force these people into any of the situation that they reside in? Yet, you want to take the hard earned money of the rich and wealthy and give it to people who had nothing to do with making it. If you make $45,000 per year, you’re going to be relatively better off than someone making $30,000. So, do you think it is fair that that person tells you how much to spend on people who make $20,000 per year? Would you be OK with me coming into your home and telling you where to cut back so that I can take the excess cash and give it to people who make less than you? I am continually amazed that people like you exist and use irrational reasoning to justify the unjustifiable. No one, you or anyone else, has the right to dictate to others how they use their money, and where and how much to spend it. NO ONE. Yes, poor people are in a difficult and unfortunate situation, but taking responsibility for them should be an individual choice, not a public policy.
Alex,
In your own response you just did the very things you accused me of doing. You made some very serious assumptions about me and about what I believe is the government’s responsibility. You tell me to get off my high-horse, but you seem to be sitting atop a Clydesdale! Yes, I have actually met a few CEO’s and I honestly wasn’t impressed. That’s neither here nor there. How many people get a public education or eat out at a restaurant? What would happen if our teachers taught students wrongly or didn’t teach at all because they didn’t have the resources to do their jobs? What would happen if a cook served bad food or cooked while sick because he couldn’t afford to be fired or miss work? The results in either case would be catastrophic and yet not beyond the realm of imagining. Both teachers and food workers are among the lowest paid in America, but their jobs influence the widest range of consumers.
I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN NOR A DEMOCRAT. I AM AN AMERICAN. I do not have all the answers, nor do I claim to. You have unjustly categorized me and run foaming at the mouth based on just a few of my frustrations. I am a realist. I have little faith in human beings to do the right thing when power is at stake, and that goes for government as well. However, I think the US is still far better off then a lot of other countries. So long as we maintain the great union by the Constitution and Amendments set forth by our forefathers, exercising reasonable consideration and due diligence, I think we’ll be ok.
Now, take a breath, count to twenty, and remember that we are all grownups. Name calling does not solve problems.
Allison Boroda. So who have you met and what relations did you have with the so called CEOs that you met? I’m not talking about the CEO of the local factory that has 20 employees and makes widgets for the local furniture whole-seller. I’m talking about S&P 500 CEOs, CFOs and COOs. Second, I’m not accusing you of anything, I asked a question: “Next, how many CEOs and CFOs have you met and socialized with?” Third, if you really did meet so many CEOs, CFOs, and COOs, you’d know that the vast majority care and worry about the world around them. Many of them are very charitable and support their employees activities to help others. Next, you may not have been impressed with whichever CEOs you may have met, but certainly, in your latest post, you’re not suggesting that those that you did meet are scum of the earth like you suggested in the second post that you made. And, there is a lot of difference between not being impressed and “Now, let’s compare the effort he puts into his work to the effort of a corporate bigwig who makes over a million dollars annually, spends his day sitting on a big leather chair in a fancy high rise office, planning “team building” exercises that are thinly veiled excuses to socialize and eat fancy lunches on the company’s dime. Oh, and Mr. Bigwig is going to mis-manage the company and ask for a handsome bail-out from the government while still expecting a hefty bonus for the year.”
Next, when did I ever suggest that teachers get paid well or that they don’t deserve what they do get paid and then some? However, does that give you the right to steal money from the wealthy, which, by the way, isn’t going to teachers but to people that have nothing to do with creating the income or wealth? And, why do you not answer this question? What are you afraid of? If you are right, you should have no problems answering my question and giving me rational reasons for why the current tax system is fair. I’ve made my case, in general, as to why I firmly believe that the current tax system is unfair to the rich and wealthy.
And, I’m the one running, foaming at the mouth, right! Have you red your response to my first post?! This is a classic strategy of the defensive and insecure: Accuse others of what you are to obfuscate the real issues and hide the truth. Good one, not!
Next, you once again contradict yourself: You claim that you’re an independent (the long and the short of it) and that you’re an American (BTW, how do you define what an American is? I’m not trying to be facetious, I’m generally and genuinely curious because I ask this question to a lot of people). You also claim that you don’t trust people and certainly not the government, yet you are more than willing to trust the government with other people’s money! Really?! Even if you’re right that neither the government nor individuals are to be trusted with power or money, do you know what the difference between leaving it up to individuals to spend money and the government forcefully taking money from the wealthy and giving it to government sponsored charities like Medicaid, welfare, earned income tax credit, food stamps, etc.? In the first case, the individual that earned the money is the only one that gets to decide how it is spent, so it is moral. In the second case, the government is stealing and what they do with the stolen money is irrelevant, because it is stolen, so it is immoral. Anyway, so which is it? Do you or do you not trust the government? I think when it comes to your money, you don’t want to trust anyone but yourself, but when it comes to other people’s money, I think you’d trust the government because that way at least you get away with paying less than your fair share of taxes and you get the benefit of receiving stolen money. How do I know this: Unless you are a total lunatic, you are going to behave rationally, which means that you’re going to as selfish as possible and support any government program that you think benefits you. And the evidence that you don’t pay your fair share? If you make about $45,000 per year then you are paying an income tax rate of some 5.5% to the federal government versus someone making more than $344,000 that pays 24%. Put it another way, you are one of the roughly 34.5 million people that make up the top 25%-50% of income earners in the US. As a group, you earn some 21% of the income generated in the US, but pay for only about 11% of the income taxes at a rate of some 6%. This versus the top 10% that constitute some 13.8 million people that make some 43% of the income, but pay about 71% of the income taxes at a rate of some 18%. To you, this is fair despite the fact that you equally benefit from self-defense, infrastructure and had the opportunity for education. And, you get the benefit of an earned income tax credit, student loan interest deductions, childcare credit and other benefits that the top 10% mostly don’t qualify for or qualify for only a small piece. So, of course, if you are rational, you’re going to want as much benefit from the government while paying the least for it. This is why I believe that you have a duplicitous motive in both trusting and not trusting the government. This is precisely why I say that people like you are destroying our country and that you’re addicted to stolen money, much like a crack addict is addicted to crack. You want more and more and you don’t care what it does to you or others in the long-term as long as you get the “fix” short-term and you couch all of this in moral indignation. NICE!
By the way, why do you get to exercise your beliefs, using other people’s money at that, and I can’t exercise my beliefs by keeping as much of the money that I earn for myself and my family?
Finally, I’ve given you numbers, facts, rational arguments, and all you can do is call me insane (run, foaming at the mouth). Let me point out again, you have yet to make any points that could be viewed as rational. All you have done here is show off your anger, frustration and ignorance (particularly in terms of offering no answers and not knowing what’s really wrong with our country), and said how bad certainly people’s lives are. So, what?! Life is hard. So, your solution is to steal more and more money from the rich, legitimize it through the democratic process, give it fancy names like re-distribution of wealth, and blindly throw irrational accusations like the “rich don’t pay their fair share” hoping that the rich will continue to enslave themselves to you and people like you. What’s so sad about people like you is that Europe, South America, India, and many, many other countries have gone down this road to ruin, yet you haven’t learned your lesson and you want to drag our country down the same road to ruin. How is this American or patriotic in any way, shape or form? You say you don’t care about my dissertation or my book? Fine, but at least read the economic history of the UK or Brazil and see if you can still support socialism. Look at countries like Venezuela in the last 15 years, look at the economic history of India (early adapter of socialism) vs. South Korea (early adapter of capitalism) from 1955 to about 1992. Look at what’s happening to Greece and Spain over the last 5 years: If you know all this, you couldn’t possibly support socialism and if you don’t then get an education before you tell people like me that you don’t care about my dissertation or argue that you’re right. I repeat, you have given me absolutely not a single rational argument to contradict anything that I’ve said, yet you go on and on and on whining, arguing and complaining. NICE!
I think I’m done talking with you. I resent having words put in my mouth. You have an inclination toward mud slinging which I find rather distasteful. “Scum of the earth?” I would never use such language to refer to another human being. I am extremely disappointed. Freedom of speech does not free one from basic rules of discourse and civility.
Thank you, Allison. I’d much rather have people realize where this debate is going instead of me editing everything and kicking people out.
Take care
An edit from Simple Politiks: Please remember Allison has already stated she will no longer contribute. With that being said, I expect this to be the final comment submitted to me regarding this discussion. It would be improper of me to refuse Alex a last word just after accepting Allison’s. Know that this is the only reason I’m allowing another comment through. Any others will be deleted, without me bothering to edit them.
Allison Boroda, you really are completely deranged. You are the one who started in on me after I put up a nice first post and made all kinds of distasteful accusation of who you call “big wigs.” Unbelievable what some people will say to try and save face. If you didn’t want to get slammed then you shouldn’t slam others first. A respectful response to my first post would have certainly avoided much of this unpleasantry and after you started this unpleasant line of debate and you have no where to go, you want to take the high road? Really?! Unbelievable! And you have the audacity to accuse me of mudslinging. What a laugh!
Your reply to my first post contained the following: “Now, let’s compare the effort he puts into his work to the effort of a corporate bigwig who makes over a million dollars annually, spends his day sitting on a big leather chair in a fancy high rise office, planning “team building” exercises that are thinly veiled excuses to socialize and eat fancy lunches on the company’s dime. Oh, and Mr. Bigwig is going to mis-manage the company and ask for a handsome bail-out from the government while still expecting a hefty bonus for the year. You want to talk about stealing?” If this is not calling someone a “scumbag” without using those words, I don’t know what is. Just because you didn’t use that word it doesn’t mean that you didn’t intend for the meaning to be planted in someone’s head. So hypocritical, despicable, and cowardly!
The harsh tone of your response does not make for constructive discussion. Everyone has and is entitled to their point of view and to `attack’ such view only leads to conflict of any fashion. Pull it back a little and leave the hostility at the door.
Naykdpoet You’re hilarious! You think her attack of my first email was a “nice retort” but my defense against her attack on me is too much! That’s so typical of people who think that anything said that fits with their opinion is reasonable no matter how irrational, while anything anyone says that one doesn’t agree with is ranting and raving, no matter how rational. Good job showing how partial you really are.
And this is how wars are started…
Very well spoken retort! Like most things `American’ the illusion of the American Dream prevails throughout the culture best illustrated when you compare lets say; the image of a McDonald’s Big Mac presented in their ceaseless commercials versus the piece of `crap’ they throw at you from behind the counter. It’s all a mythological reality that has been so well packaged that I am convinced that most looking at that so called hamburger – can only visualize the image portrayed by the ad. This analogy holds true for just about everything the good ol’ USofA stands for.
Naykdpoet What nice retort? Allison Boroda, as well intentioned as she may think she is makes absolutely no sense. Who said anything about Vietnam vets? Who said anything about the military? The three things that the US government should collect taxes for and fund are: 1) Self-defense, 2) Infrastructure, and 3) Education. Second, she claims that making $2.13/hour is not making money. How is that rational in any way shape or form? Isn’t a penny money? You may not be able to buy anything with a penny, but it certainly is money. And, she did not prove in any remote way shape or form that the poor make their money on their own, but the rich did not. And, soldiers today do get paid and not only that they are volunteers. Meaning, they weren’t forced by the rich and wealthy to go to the military and protect them. They VOLUNTEERED! Then she goes off on “big-wigs” of which she knows none, met none and categorically condemned all of them without any shred of proof. Not only that, I’m willing to bet that she thinks Wall Street caused the financial crisis when in fact it was caused by average Americans borrowing too much to buy homes, cars, goods, etc. Then she decides to further demonstrate her incompetence by suggesting that the creation of two jobs isn’t worth giving a business a tax break, despite the fact that US businesses pay the highest corporate tax rates in the world. How is creating two jobs not a good thing? Just because she can’t fulfill her ambitions, she has to crap all over other people’s opportunity. Lastly, how would she know what jobs would or would not be created? She obviously has ridiculously little knowledge of economics or got a really bad education or both. And, what’s wrong with making $50,000/year? That’s the average income of Americans! Ultimately, what’s really funny is that your view of McD and Americans describes Allison Boroda to a T!
You wrote – “Not only that, I’m willing to bet that she thinks Wall Street caused the financial crisis when in fact it was caused by average Americans borrowing too much to buy homes, cars, goods, etc’.
Almost laughing too hard to type.
Please go back to the mid 90′s and see Congress repeal Glass Seigel and then simply follow the massive flood of paper that shows financial institutions falling over themselves with all the new ‘products and services’.
People buying cars, homes and tv’s did not cause the finacial crisis.
Basing your arguement on that…….well – you type well. Now if you just had something to say.
Fatherkane. You’re hilarious. What’s Glass-Seigel?! Do you mean the Glass-STEAGALL act? I’ll tell you what, explain to people reading this blog what the Glass-Steagall act is, why it was created, what the rationale for getting rid of it was, whether or not the basis of Glass-Steagall was correct or not then I’ll have further words with you. Oh, one more thing: Explain to people reading this blog, how it is possible for Wall Street to create the “massive flood of paper” without consumers buying homes, cars, products and goods. I DARE you! It’s going to be fun watching you squirm. Bud, to be fair, I’ll tell you up front this fact: You chose the wrong person to challenge with the wrong argument. Object lesson: Suspiciously listen to 1% of what politicians tell you and assume that for the 99% that they’re lying and you may be able to stay out of trouble.
To : Anonymous says:
10 January, 2013 at 10:22 pm
Fatherkane. You’re hilarious. What’s Glass-Seigel?! Do you mean the Glass-STEAGALL act? I’ll tell you what, explain to people reading this blog what the Glass-Steagall act is, why it was created, what the rationale for getting rid of it was, whether or not the basis of Glass-Steagall was correct or not then I’ll have further words with you. Oh, one more thing: Explain to people reading this blog, how it is possible for Wall Street to create the “massive flood of paper” without consumers buying homes, cars, products and goods. I DARE you! It’s going to be fun watching you squirm. Bud, to be fair, I’ll tell you up front this fact: You chose the wrong person to challenge with the wrong argument. Object lesson: Suspiciously listen to 1% of what politicians tell you and assume that for the 99% that they’re lying and you may be able to stay out of trouble.”
Please continue to laugh and yell. You do it very well.
For myself, I’ll just present a reasoned arguement.
You asked _ “I’ll tell you what, explain to people reading this blog what the Glass-Steagall act is, why it was created, what the rationale for getting rid of it was, whether or not the basis of Glass-Steagall was correct or not then I’ll have further words with you. Oh, one more thing: Explain to people reading this blog, how it is possible for Wall Street to create the “massive flood of paper” without consumers buying homes, cars, products and goods. I DARE YOU”.
OK -Parsons Blames Glass-Steagall Repeal for Crisis
@ : http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-19/parsons-blames-glass-steagall-repeal-for-crisis.html
Repeal of Glass-Steagall Caused the Financial Crisis
@ : http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/08/27/repeal-of-glass-steagall-caused-the-financial-crisis
Glass-Steagall and the Economic Crisis
@ : http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/glass-steagall-and-the-economic-crisis
Five Myths about Glass-Steagall
@ : http://american.com/archive/2012/august/five-myths-about-glass-steagall
Reinstating an Old Rule Is Not a Cure for Crisis
@ : http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/reinstating-an-old-rule-is-not-a-cure-for-crisis/
Phil Gramm: Glass-Steagall Repeal Didn’t Have ‘Anything To Do With The Financial Crisis’
@ : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/26/phil-gramm-glass-steagall-financial-crisis_n_1705610.html
Shattering the Glass-Steagall Act
@ : http://www.counterpunch.org/2008/09/19/shattering-the-glass-steagall-act/
Glass-Steagall Has Nothing To Do With The Financial Crisis Of 2008
@ : http://www.forbes.com/sites/bobmcteer/2012/07/25/bank-crises-and-solutions-should-be-at-least-somewhat-related/
Now since you are defending it – ” “Not only that, I’m willing to bet that she thinks Wall Street caused the financial crisis when in fact it was caused by average Americans borrowing too much to buy homes, cars, goods, etc’”.
Defend it. How did we average Americans by ‘BORROWING’ cause the financial crisis?
Now remember – the banks making the loans didn’t cause it. The banks and other financial centers holding sub prime debt didn’t cause it. The default swap markets didn’t cause it.
Americans BORROWING caused it.
An edit from Simple Politiks: I’m permitting this comment to stay. There is no attacking here, just debate. Below is the original comment.
Fatherkane, Nice obfuscation! Bury someone with useless information. I like it; well played. How can Wall Street issue paper if there are no mortgages to package to issue MBS? People need to buy homes for the paper that you blame for bringing down the economy to be issued. That is how Americans borrowing caused the downfall of our economy. Is that good enough?! That’s why I asked you the question, how is it possible for Wall Street to create the paper without American borrowing foolishly and buying.
Also, since you won’t answer the question regarding Glass-Steagall, I will answer it here. The Glass-Steagall act has been proven to have nothing to do with the Great Depression and was a senseless legislation and knee-jerk reaction to what happened to the stock market in 1929. The crash of Wall Street in 1929 was due to people taking too much risk and the banks tried to fulfill the demand for capital by allowing people to borrow $9 for every $1. So, when the market started to top off, the OVER-LEVERAGING caused the market to collapse and spiral into chaos. However, all historical economic data indicate that the economy had started to recover when it was hit with the Smoot-Hawley anti-trade act in 1930, and it is this act that precipitated the Great Depression. Regardless, Glass-Steagall was designed to keep investment banking and commercial banking separate in the hopes that the risk of one wouldn’t bringdown the other. However, the reality of the matter is is that the COMMERCIAL BANKING side is what brought down the investment banking side during the latest financial crisis and even if Glass-Steagall had been in place the defaults on mortgages would have killed both sides of the financial world anyway. This is why blaming the repeal of Glass-Steagall is so spurious and totally besides the point. And, quoting a whole bunch of ignorant politicians and reporters who quote them to flog a liberal agenda doesn’t prove your point correct or rational.
Why can’t people all be as straight-forward when making an argument? I don’t understand this penchant for people to quote others to support their position regardless of the logical position of their argument, instead of presenting facts and logic to make their point. It’s like people quoting George Wallace: “Segregation now; segregation forever” to say, “Hey the Governor of Alabama supports segregation, so I must be right in supporting segregation!” Am I the only one who finds this disturbing?
I am assuming the response to Fatherland’s comment is by Simple Politiks the owner of this blog and accept my apologies if I am wrong but, who ever is posting this response and several others for that matter, I can only say you present yourself as rather pompous in your attitude. To be specific to this most recent by Fatherland wherein he is ridiculed for making a mistake: quote: `You’re hilarious. What’s Glass-Seigel?! Do you mean the Glass-STEAGALL act? I’ll tell you what, explain to people reading this blog what the Glass-Steagall a’.
This type of tone in what is to be I thought, a fair and informative exchange of political perspective on current issues is less then constructive. If it is to be an exchange of `barbs’ and inference of `ignorance’ on the part of contributors, then it in the end, is a waste of time for everyone.
It is quite possible whom-ever it is that owns this site will delete this response only out of defiance to an obvious truth: they are only interested in bombastically illustrating their superior political knowledge but in the end; only illustrate their social stupidity.
To conclude, whom ever you are, you need not reply to this statement as I will have unsubscribed from Simple Politiks by then. How ironic: `Simple’, that’s cute.
freelance-writer,
I can assure you that I did not participate in this debate until just a few moments ago (when I decided to tell everyone that I was ending their arguing). I am no coward, I would not allow myself to be shielded by the name “Anonymous” on my own website. As the owner of the website I have to approve each comment before it can be seen by the public. I allowed a good deal of comments to go through for this post’s comments section that I considered to be iffy. I assumed both sides would eventually tire out and it wouldn’t escalate too much further. I was wrong and when I checked the comments section last night I had decided that in the morning I would put an end to the petty squabbling (I checked through my phone and I didn’t have a computer nearby, that’s why I waited until this morning).
I just approved the last comments relating to this debate. No others will be allowed through and I will edit any attempts to make sure they understand.
I urge you to reconsider unsubscribing if your sole reason is your belief that I am the culprit behind “Anonymous”. You may still believe so, what good are my words anyways? It’s fairly easy to change names on the internet. But if that is still the case then I encourage you to observe the comments section of my other posts. Study my writing. It is difficult to replicate a person’s style and their sincerity in writing. I’m sure once you compare any previous comment of mine to the ones you read from “Anonymous”, you will quickly realize that they couldn’t possibly be written by me. I have an entirely different approach to the issues and I have never used the 1% arguments in my debates.
If you are unsubscribing for different reasons entirely then I suppose I cannot stop you or convince you otherwise. I apologize for any dissatisfaction you experienced on my website. Whether you stay or go, this will be a stinging reminder for me to hold the comments section and all of its contributors to a much higher level of conduct. I will have to intervene at the start of disrespectful debate, not after its peak.
Please feel free to email me if you would like to speak more extensively about staying, leaving, or your dissatisfaction. My email is simplepolitiks@gmail.com. Hopefully I’ll see you around again, despite this complication.
Well you are certainly entitled to your point-of-view but, that said, it is obvious your allegiance is with the minority 1%. Without knowing anything about you or your situation it is unfair to make any disparaging remark to your view of `reality’ however, given the perspective you present it would suggest it is not founded in true-to-life experience or that you have been raised in an environment most would consider `privileged’. Either way, it makes for good debate and enlightenment don’t you think?
What’s wrong with siding with the 1%, if that view is correct? Are you so blind and frustrated that you would not consider any view point that isn’t yours or admit you’re wrong when proven so? Rationally, what have I said that is wrong or irrational? When you present rational reasons as to why my view is irrational, immoral or both, I will consider that we’re having a good debate. Until then your view of what is “true-to-life” will not be considered nor should it be. By the way, I really don’t care about “true-to-life,” what I care about is what’s moral and rational. Principals first then execution.
Are you sure you’re not Paul Davis Ryan (born January 29, 1970), because he came across as a `Principals’ ed but I think you meant Principles’ (for one who is so specific you should clarify the definition in your choice of words; it’s the principle and moral thing to do). Need I say more?
This post has been edited by Simple Politiks. The argument has drifted from a respectful clashing of ideas to a discussion of a more derogatory nature. From both sides. I have to interject now, which is disappointing; I expected better.
- SP
It almost conjures up images similar to H.G. Well’s futuristic image of humanity forking into two subspecies. I see first-responders staging mock Zombie pandemics as training sessions and I think they need to look around. It’s already happening; we have become zombies, standing in line to hand over our hard-earned, scarce income for food and merchandise that will poison our bodies, minds and spirits.
It seems my first comment wasn’t deleted. Double the angst. Booya!
Haha would you like a comment deleted? I just approved your long one and deleted the shorter version which said pretty much the same thing (but was cut off short). I can always bring it back, change it, or anything else so let me know!
That works! Thanks,
Public office is all about ego and connections, there is no interest in advancing the common good. Drastic cuts must be implemented to improve financial stability but it’s not likely to happen; we have become a nation of procrastinators.
I would like to recommend if you may not be aware, a Internet News website: THE REAL NEWS NETWORK (http://trnn.com). This is member-funded by donation website examines national and global news events with an objective journalistic perspective as one would expect. A series of interviews have been presented covering all aspects of this particular news item. Check it out I am sure you will agree.
I think we need cuts in place that will not slow down growth. But as you said republicans don’t wanna touch defense as well as most democrats and democrats don’t want to touch Medicare and Medicaid. They can find areas to cut but the political down side is worse than not doing anything. I see a leadership deficit as well as we the people saying we want cuts but since we ave been hit so much we don’t wanna sacrifice more. I hope they just do the right thing regardless if we vote them out to prevent us spending more on servicing debt in the future instead of investing in America. I guess been a world currency and having a large economy gives them a chance to buy time.
Ideally cutting without impeding growth is what needs to happen but I don’t think it is a realistic goal for combating the debt. This isn’t exactly a minor mistake a few administrations have made… What we see now is the snowball effect rendered by unsustainable programs and poor decision making for the long term. I’m hopeful we can turn this around before the problem gets out of control, but we need to act now and not a decade or two down the road for that to happen. Should be an interesting next 10 years…
I don’t think we’ll make it 10 years or at the very least, we as a Nation will look very, very different.
Rather then cut spending or raise taxes, I’m of the third opinion.
Increase public spending (as the private sector won’t) to invest in infrastructure, education, health care. Get the unemployment rate down to under 3%. Small unemployment means very little public services needed. Increased employment means additional revenues.
Cut the military by half at least and turn health care into a single payer option.
We won’t do any of this as special interests and political ideology will stop that but if we did, we could ‘build’ our way out of debt. And have a great health care,educational system.and infrastructure!
Nakydpoet. Your comment about how wars are started is like you painting a white wall with black paint in the middle of an argument as to whether a wall is white or black and saying, “See, I told you the wall was black.” Look in the mirror!
Enough. I have to approve every comment that is posted but I will not approve any more relating to this argument. All of your points have been stated. The only thing either side is doing now is gradually coming closer to flat-out insulting one another. That is not a debate, it is a fight, and I will not allow it to detract from the post any longer.
I’m not taking any sides, just ending it.
This post has been edited by Simple Politiks. The argument has drifted from a respectful clashing of ideas to a discussion of a more derogatory nature. From both sides. I have to interject now, which is disappointing; I expected better.
- SP
Greetings SP,
Just wanted to say a quick ‘thank you’ for stopping by and liking my recent post!
I can see you have your hands full…
Wishing you well.
KFH.