The evils of privatization

[Spartanmack]

Sure, but the dog 1st bankrolled your election and asked you to leave the steak out. It's still your fault, but collusion plays a role.

again, the dog is just responding to what you're presenting it. Blaming the banks for politicians selling themselves to special interests is the same as blaming them for the financial crisis. I'm not saying banks are completely innocent. I am saying if government is presenting them these options and government is offering themselves up for sale to the highest bidder then government gets the lion's share of the blame when it fails.

I've said it a million times here - institute term limits everywhere, congress and the supreme court in particular. "Politician" shouldn't be a career with such insanely lavish benefits and power. Term limits won't fix everything immediately, but I personally don't think any of it will get fixed ever without them. And if you want to regulate something, how about we start with lobbyists - reign in special interests including unions. This also won't fix everything overnight but to me, those are the two biggest impediments to meaningful reform - and I think term limits have to come first.

 

[Michchamp]

Sure, but the dog 1st bankrolled your election and asked you to leave the steak out. It's still your fault, but collusion plays a role.

don't even bother; it was a bad analogy in the first place. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were participants in the Great subprime mortgage fraud disaster, but as buyers of bad mortgage securities they were not the cause of it, or the catalysts for it. The mortgage originators, banks who created the mortgage-backed securities, and ratings agencies were all at fault; the crisis would've happened even if FreddieMac and Fannie Mae didnt exist.

 

[Gulo Blue]

again, the dog is just responding to what you're presenting it. Blaming the banks for politicians selling themselves to special interests is the same as blaming them for the financial crisis. I'm not saying banks are completely innocent. I am saying if government is presenting them these options and government is offering themselves up for sale to the highest bidder then government gets the lion's share of the blame when it fails.

I've said it a million times here - institute term limits everywhere, congress and the supreme court in particular. "Politician" shouldn't be a career with such insanely lavish benefits and power. Term limits won't fix everything immediately, but I personally don't think any of it will get fixed ever without them. And if you want to regulate something, how about we start with lobbyists - reign in special interests including unions. This also won't fix everything overnight but to me, those are the two biggest impediments to meaningful reform - and I think term limits have to come first.

We need to do what we can to get money out of elections. When money can influence elections, you run into a conflict between democracy and free market capitalism. Free market capitalism is driven by financial inequality (and I'm not saying that's bad economics, it's the best economics). But the more that inequality correlates to political power, the more you have to expect your politicians to act this way.

 

[Spartanmack]

We need to do what we can to get money out of elections. When money can influence elections, you run into a conflict between democracy and free market capitalism. Free market capitalism is driven by financial inequality (and I'm not saying that's bad economics, it's the best economics). But the more that inequality correlates to political power, the more you have to expect your politicians to act this way.

agreed on most of this but I think it's worth clarifying that the correlation you talk about is not a natural byproduct of free market economics. It's a result of a poorly designed political system.

Again, I believe with term limits, the "value" of politicians decreases dramatically and makes buying or "investing" in them a much riskier proposition so there will be a natural reduction in prices paid and money flowing into politics. It's not foolproof - big money interests can potentially fund of string of candidates back-to-back-to-back, but clearly, it's riskier for them. There probably needs to be other constraints like limits on special interest spending because term limits probably don't fix the whole thing.

 

[Spartanmack]

don't even bother; it was a bad analogy in the first place. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were participants in the Great subprime mortgage fraud disaster, but as buyers of bad mortgage securities they were not the cause of it, or the catalysts for it. The mortgage originators, banks who created the mortgage-backed securities, and ratings agencies were all at fault; the crisis would've happened even if FreddieMac and Fannie Mae didnt exist.

the analogy was perfect and this is pure speculation on your part and most likely wrong. If it wasn't fannie or freddie, the government would have had to find some other way to grow the leviathan and provide incentives for banks to offer cheap loans to high risk borrowers.

 

[Gulo Blue]

don't even bother; it was a bad analogy in the first place. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were participants in the Great subprime mortgage fraud disaster, but as buyers of bad mortgage securities they were not the cause of it, or the catalysts for it. The mortgage originators, banks who created the mortgage-backed securities, and ratings agencies were all at fault; the crisis would've happened even if FreddieMac and Fannie Mae didnt exist.

I bought a house in this time frame. It was reckless crazy. I did the 'responsible' thing and asked a bank how much of a loan I qualified for before house shopping. I didn't make much at the time. They offered me over ten times my annual salary and didn't ask about my spouse or my job or anything, just ran a credit check.

I didn't buy that much house.

 

[biggunsbob]

agreed on most of this but I think it's worth clarifying that the correlation you talk about is not a natural byproduct of free market economics. It's a result of a poorly designed political system.

Again, I believe with term limits, the "value" of politicians decreases dramatically and makes buying or "investing" in them a much riskier proposition so there will be a natural reduction in prices paid and money flowing into politics. It's not foolproof - big money interests can potentially fund of string of candidates back-to-back-to-back, but clearly, it's riskier for them. There probably needs to be other constraints like limits on special interest spending because term limits probably don't fix the whole thing.

I agree with you on term limits and finance reform but until citzens united is overturned it's just not going to happen

Please clarify your prvitation stance on social security. Will they regulate or cap fees the banks can make of this? Because as you know the wall street can't wait to get thier hands on social security money . Also since you and republicans want to do this you must acknowledge where the stockmarket is today at record highs since Obama took office. Because with no help from the Gop obama has dropped unemployment from 10% to 4.9 % and the stock market is at new highs. So you want a Kansas type tax breaks for everyone or just Social Security? Will these great companies getting all this money pay well and or take care of the environment? Because we all know including you that most (not all ) don't give a shit about where there pollution goes.Trump just said last night in grand rapids that if he wins America will see the biggest tax cut in America history.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I really haven't heard much talk about this since the Bush Gore election in 2000.

Maybe Paul Ryan talk about it a little during the 2012 election.

I've only heard of it as in "opt out" option plan as opposed to a full on elimination of Social Security for workers and taxpayers who would prefer to stay with in the established Social Security system.

 

[Spartanmack]

I really haven't heard much talk about this since the Bush Gore election in 2000.

Maybe Paul Ryan talk about it a little during the 2012 election.

I've only heard of it as in "opt out" option plan as opposed to a full on elimination of Social Security for workers and taxpayers who would prefer to stay with in the established Social Security system.

you can't give people a choice because most would chose self determination over subjugating themselves to government overlords. Bob and chump types would never go for that. No school choice - Dems have union votes to pay for, to heck with the kids, no opting out of social security - gov't can't misuse funds if they never get them.

 

[tinselwolverine]

you can't give people a choice because most would chose self determination over subjugating themselves to government overlords. Bob and chump types would never go for that. No school choice - Dems have union votes to pay for, to heck with the kids, no opting out of social security - gov't can't misuse funds if they never get them.

I think a lot of people would actually stay in the Social Security system that we have.

I think that if most would choose to opt out we would already have the opt out.

Perhaps some people feel pretty strongly about this issue but I think most people actually don't.

Lower income people who are only going to have Social Security would probably just stick with it.

Upper income people will probably philosophically think there should be an opt out but have bigger fish to fry on other issues.

They'll just do private retirement plans on their own and bite the bullet and pay the payroll taxes - they're really not that much for people who have money anyway.

It's like the progressive income tax-I know you are among the people that want to see that changed, but apparently enough people who make above average money seem to just live with it.