Obama plans fast action on financial regulation: report

[WoodysGirl]

Sat Jan 24, 7:45 pm ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) – The Obama administration plans to tighten the nation's financial regulatory system, including stricter federal rules for hedge funds, credit rating agencies and mortgage brokers, the New York Times reported in Sunday editions.

The broad changes include increased oversight of the complex financial instruments that helped spawn the current economic crisis, the newspaper said on its website Saturday night.

The newspaper based its story on interviews with officials as well as confirmation hearings for senior administration appointees, and a recent report by an international committee led by Paul Volcker, one of President Obama's chief economic advisers.

These officials want rules that would eliminate conflicts of interest at credit rating agencies that gave top investment grades to the ultimately shaky financial instruments that have been one source of market turmoil.

The officials pointed out that under the present system, the agencies are paid by companies to help them structure financial instruments -- which the agencies then grade.

"Until we deal with the compensation model, we're not going to deal with the conflict of interest and people are not going to have confidence that the ratings are worth relying on, worth the paper they're printed on," the newspaper quoted the newly confirmed Securities and Exchange Commission head Mary Schapiro as saying.

Treasury secretary Timothy Geithner made similar written and verbal comments before Senate Finance Committee, it said.

The officials said the Obama administration has embraced one of the themes of the Volcker report as a guiding principle -- that major companies and financial instruments that are mostly unsupervised must be brought back under a larger regulatory umbrella.

While some actions will be require legislation, others should be achievable through regulations adopted by federal agencies, the Times said.

FEDERAL STANDARDS FOR BROKERS

The administration plans to propose new federal standards for mortgage brokers who issued often unsuitable loans, but have been mostly regulated by the states. They are also considering having the SEC become more involved in supervising the underwriting standards of mortgage-backed securities, it added.

Other goals include requiring that derivatives like credit default swaps -- insurance against loan defaults which were central to the financial collapse -- be traded through a central clearinghouse and possibly on one or more exchanges.

Additionally, the plan may include a broader role for the Federal Reserve in protecting the economy from companies whose troubles pose systemwide risks, as the report issued this month under Volcker proposed.

Officials have also begun studying ways to control executive compensation, the Times said.

Another component will provide the strategy for how the government will go about shoring up the flagging banking industry, the newspaper said.

Senior aides vow to move quickly on the new financial regulatory plan, it said.

(Reporting by Christopher Michaud, New York bureau, editing by Philip Barbara)


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090125/pl_nm/us_obama_regulations_report

[Beast_from_East]

Good, somebody needs to start watching these greedy SOBs on Wall Street!!!

[ThaBigP]

Good, somebody needs to start watching these greedy SOBs on Wall Street!!!

Yes...by the wonderful solution of marrying greed and corruption on Wall St. to the greed and corruption in Washington. Just brilliant! My simple solution would be: you gamble and lose? you fail.

[Aikbach]

Good, somebody needs to start watching these greedy SOBs on Wall Street!!!Yeah and those greedy sobs in government are being watched by whom?

[Beast_from_East]

Yes...by the wonderful solution of marrying greed and corruption on Wall St. to the greed and corruption in Washington. Just brilliant! My simple solution would be: you gamble and lose? you fail.

I would tend to agree with you except for the fact that Bush and his Treasury Secretary came up with the brilliant idea of the TARP fund to bail out Wall Street to the tune of $700 billion of taxpayer money.

Wall Street can "gambe and lose" on thier own dime, not mine. If my money and your money are going to be used by AIG to send executives to a get-away spa or by Merril Lynch to remodel a freaking bathroom...........then I dam well want the Government watching their every move.

As soon as Wall Street started taking taxpayer money, the rules change. If they dont want Government monitoring how many times to go to the bathroom during the day, then dont take the dam money.

[Beast_from_East]

Yeah and those greedy sobs in government are being watched by whom?

Ultimately, the voters.

[ThaBigP]

Ultimately, the voters.

Except....they're not. We have a tax cheat as both the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committe...and now Treasury Secretary. And that's just two of 'em.

Murtha called his constituents racists and rednecks. They reelected him. Then he offered to place terrorists in their midst. I say: move the terrorists there to his district. They deserve them.

[Beast_from_East]

Except....they're not. We have a tax cheat as both the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committe...and now Treasury Secretary. And that's just two of 'em.

Murtha called his constituents racists and rednecks. They reelected him. Then he offered to place terrorists in their midst. I say: move the terrorists there to his district. They deserve them.

I cant argu with you about that.


I still am at a loss at how the Sec of the Treasury can not pay his taxes and he gets a pass and gets confirmed.

If that was you or me that didnt pay our taxes, we would both be getting water-boarded in Gitmo right now!!!!

As for Murtha, you are 100% correct on him to. If he wants all the Gitmo detainees, them lets move them all to his district. No argument from me there.

[burmafrd]

Gee and you once again shade things beast. Who was pushing just as hard for the TARP and actually wanted MORE PORK? YOUR friends Frank and Reid and Pelosi.

[JBond]

Yeah and those greedy sobs in government are being watched by whom?


Don't you worry. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are there to keep an eye on things. They have done such an excellent job there should be no worries by anyone.

[JBond]

I cant argu with you about that.


I still am at a loss at how the Sec of the Treasury can not pay his taxes and he gets a pass and gets confirmed.

If that was you or me that didnt pay our taxes, we would both be getting water-boarded in Gitmo right now!!!!

As for Murtha, you are 100% correct on him to. If he wants all the Gitmo detainees, them lets move them all to his district. No argument from me there.

I just hope they do not end up in Leavenworth. 10 minutes from my house. We already have Vick. Isn't that enough?

I like the Alcatraz idea. Stick them in the heart of a liberal utopia. I like it alot.

[Hoofbite]

I just hope they do not end up in Leavenworth. 10 minutes from my house. We already have Vick. Isn't that enough?

I like the Alcatraz idea. Stick them in the heart of a liberal utopia. I like it alot.

10 minutes in which direction?

[Cajuncowboy]

Regulation: The term used by the left that means "we are going to stick our noses in private business and if you don't do it the way we want, we will shut you down."

Regulation isn't as wordy and can fit on a bumper sticker.

[JBond]

10 minutes in which direction?

I am south of Leavenworth, in a little town called Shawnee, Kansas.

[ChldsPlay]

I am south of Leavenworth, in a little town called Shawnee, Kansas.

I'm in Independence, MO. Not too far there.

[VCDefectors]

I'm all for regulation of the financial markets. While this will have a short-term negative impact, I don't think that trust in Wall Street will return without it.

[Kangaroo]

I am not a big fan of regulating private industry salaries. I would like to see them ban any executives or board members from owning stock or receiving stock as a bonus.

There are many reason companies and CEO's want the stock it is a loop hole for taxes they do not have to pay taxes on it until they sell it so they are in control of when they pay the taxes etc. There our other reason as well.

This becomes a double edge sword there is way to much of their own personal wealth tied up in the stocks millions of dollars worth. This is why I think they will fudge what ever they can to keep their money good until they cash in due to so much being at stake of their own money.

I am not against the big salaries I just think they should be paid cash like everyone else and require all executives/Board salaries to be filed with quarterly reports. I also think that if they have a pension plan it needs to be set up in the same pension plan as the regular employees of the company not a separate one just for them. I bet it gets funded properly that way.

Just my view

[arglebargle]

Regulation: The term used by the left that means "we are going to stick our noses in private business and if you don't do it the way we want, we will shut you down."

Regulation isn't as wordy and can fit on a bumper sticker.

Yeah! I hate all that regulation and inspection of our food supply. It should just be left to the free market. They should be able to put anything they want in there. That's the right way!

That wouldn't fit on a bumper sticker either though...

[BrAinPaiNt]

Regulation is one of those double edged swords to me.

I would prefer government keep their noses out of business and let the business regulate itself.

However it seems some businesses can not do that and when given the power and self interest they abuse that trust.

When they do abuse the trust and it is a multibillion or more business...who else would have to rope it in?

Double edged sword to be sure.

[arglebargle]

Agreed there, Brain....

[Cajuncowboy]

Yeah! I hate all that regulation and inspection of our food supply. It should just be left to the free market. They should be able to put anything they want in there. That's the right way!

That wouldn't fit on a bumper sticker either though...

Hmmm, let's see. You put out a bad product and people will stop buying it. Increase you quality, you increase your sales.

[arglebargle]

We have people dieing now from Salmonella, with our present, overloaded, system. Peanuts, last year's tainted vegetables, the list goes on. And the actual guilty parties aren't always the ones to take the fall

I am sure the dead folks will be very pleased that Peanut Corporation of America will lose some sales.

[ThaBigP]

I cant argu with you about that.


I still am at a loss at how the Sec of the Treasury can not pay his taxes and he gets a pass and gets confirmed.

If that was you or me that didnt pay our taxes, we would both be getting water-boarded in Gitmo right now!!!!

As for Murtha, you are 100% correct on him to. If he wants all the Gitmo detainees, them lets move them all to his district. No argument from me there.

You don't have to go to such illegal extremes as evading taxes or being a terrorist to get water-boarded. Join the Navy and try out for the SEALs. You'll get water-boarded as part of your training.

[arglebargle]

You don't have to go to such illegal extremes as evading taxes or being a terrorist to get water-boarded. Join the Navy and try out for the SEALs. You'll get water-boarded as part of your training.


Yes, in the class where they train you for what you might experiance if captured by forces of ruthless authoritarian dictators.

[burmafrd]

As long as it works and they are volunteers. BUT argle if you THINK that is the limit to what the bad guys would do to any of ours that they capture then you really are out to lunch.

[theogt]

Hmmm, let's see. You put out a bad product and people will stop buying it. Increase you quality, you increase your sales.Yeah, only a few people die finding out if it's a bad product. No big deal.

[davidyee]

Hmmm, let's see. You put out a bad product and people will stop buying it. Increase you quality, you increase your sales.

..to temper global opinions and look to see how it actually affects the public.

There are so much industries who hold near monopolistic to oligarchic control over consumer goods sectors that it needs some form of monitoring to prevent society from being guinea pigs to their corporate desires.

Pick your choices: poor car design, faulty chimneys, pharmaceutical disasters, bad building materials, poor engineering standards.

To leave the monitoring to the "free market forces" may put too many people at risk...including investors.

Obviously some risks are more life threatening than others, but I guess one could say that the victims of the Enron situation shows that watch dogs are needed in the financial and corporate industry.

I don't think it's black and white to criticize checks and balances, external monitoring and regulatory agencies. There are numerous examples of how they have helped build the fabric of working society.

There are many areas where common citizens do not have the expertise to make a judgment about the "quality" of a service or a product.

[jrumann59]

Now they want regulations but when the republicans looked into Fannie and Freddie and wanted to tighten regulations they were called racists, and witch hunters. So I guess its OK to regulate when everything is going to hell in a hand basket but it isn't OK when everybody is making money hand over fist. Something just doesn't seem right.

[JBond]

I'm all for regulation of the financial markets. While this will have a short-term negative impact, I don't think that trust in Wall Street will return without it.

Of course you do.

[Cajuncowboy]

We have people dieing now from Salmonella, with our present, overloaded, system. Peanuts, last year's tainted vegetables, the list goes on. And the actual guilty parties aren't always the ones to take the fall

I am sure the dead folks will be very pleased that Peanut Corporation of America will lose some sales.

Oh yeah, the government is the answer. Ever hear of the FDA?

That worked well huh?

Ya'll don't get it.

[Cajuncowboy]

Yeah, only a few people die finding out if it's a bad product. No big deal.

Do you really think that a company intentionally puts product out there to kill people? We already have the government in our food and people still die. Your point is moot.

[JBond]

Regulation is one of those double edged swords to me.

I would prefer government keep their noses out of business and let the business regulate itself.

However it seems some businesses can not do that and when given the power and self interest they abuse that trust.

When they do abuse the trust and it is a multibillion or more business...who else would have to rope it in?

Double edged sword to be sure.

The question is who looked the other way? Who proposed reform and who said there was none needed? What happened? Why did banks start making crazy loans? Was it encouraged by the government? How did this happen? Why are the people who pay their patriotic taxes expected to bailout failures?

I would love to know the answers.

[theogt]

Do you really think that a company intentionally puts product out there to kill people? We already have the government in our food and people still die. Your point is moot.Nevermind the risk that more people would die. Fantastic logic by the way -- since we can't eliminate all deaths we shouldn't eliminate any.

And who said anything about intentionally putting products out that kill people?

[TheCount]

Do you really think that a company intentionally puts product out there to kill people? We already have the government in our food and people still die. Your point is moot.

Those idiots at that Chinese dairy plant weren't planning to kill anyone either, and they live in a nation that just sentenced some of them to death for what they did.

[JBond]

Yeah, only a few people die finding out if it's a bad product. No big deal.

http://communitiesonline.homestead.com/files/troll_2.jpg

Typical liberal troll. Devoid of a rational thought.

[Cajuncowboy]

Those idiots at that Chinese dairy plant weren't planning to kill anyone either, and they live in a nation that just sentenced some of them to death for what they did.

True. And that is GOVERNMENT run. Thanks for making my point.

[Cajuncowboy]

Nevermind the risk that more people would die. Fantastic logic by the way -- since we can't eliminate all deaths we shouldn't eliminate any.

And who said anything about intentionally putting products out that kill people?

That's idiotic. If a company would not have the quality control do you really think they would survive?

Life comes with risks. What you want is a nanny state to keep you safe and sound.

LEt me ask you a question, Do you drink alcohol or use tobacco?

[TheCount]

True. And that is GOVERNMENT run. Thanks for making my point.

If you think that makes your point, I'm not sure you know what your point is.

[Cajuncowboy]

If you think that makes your point, I'm not sure you know what your point is.

You flunked remedial everything in school didn't you?

You brought up the Chinese factory who poisoned children.

You advocate government involvement.

That factory was government owned.

Yes, my point was made and you helped do it.

[theogt]

That's idiotic. If a company would not have the quality control do you really think they would survive?

Life comes with risks. What you want is a nanny state to keep you safe and sound.

LEt me ask you a question, Do you drink alcohol or use tobacco?Life comes with risks. LOL. Yeah, that's it. Screw saving lives. This is a junior high level government class political discussion.

[Cajuncowboy]

Life comes with risks. LOL. Yeah, that's it. Screw saving lives. This is a junior high level government class political discussion.

Go ask your nanny for your bottle. It's late.

[CowboyWay]

That's idiotic. If a company would not have the quality control do you really think they would survive?

Life comes with risks. What you want is a nanny state to keep you safe and sound.



Let me put this in terms that maybe Cajun can understand. Lets say that fancy little bible software you're trying to sell to people was bad. Lets say I plop my cash down and instead of getting a great CD-Rom of parting the red sea, it was parting my hard drive with a virus.

True, after word got out that you were selling bad software, you'd probably go out of business. But not before you sold several thousand copies of it, and wrecked several thousand computers.

Now lets say there was someone who watched over things, say like a district attorney. Someone who you know, you would have to answer to if you weren't selling something on the up and up.

Don't you think as a consumer, I'd feel better buying a product from you if I was pretty sure of what I was getting? Isn't this why most of us choose to go to best buy and buy software, instead of some guy named Vinny who sells things out of the trunk of his car?

[JBond]

Those idiots at that Chinese dairy plant weren't planning to kill anyone either, and they live in a nation that just sentenced some of them to death for what they did.

A communist government hard at work. Thank God Obama is here. He does not believe in the government to raise up the country he believes the people will raise the country.;)

[TheCount]

You flunked remedial everything in school didn't you?

You brought up the Chinese factory who poisoned children.

You advocate government involvement.

That factory was government owned.

Yes, my point was made and you helped do it.

The government run comany had executives cut corners and put people's lives at risk, you're response is that they would have done better with no regulation at all. Fantastic.

And for the record, I don't advocate government involvement in everything, but I sure as hell don't trust these *******s with my food without someone looking over their shoulder.

[CowboyWay]

Life comes with risks. LOL. Yeah, that's it. Screw saving lives. This is a junior high level government class political discussion.

I think you nailed it. This type of argument was exactly the type of arguments the kids who thought they knew everything in junior high put up.

They have no prior knowledge of anything before their 13 years on the planet, they just see the govt as "interfering". They had no idea what it was like before the govt regulated anything.

Sell Rancid beef? No problem.
Get on an airplane that wasn't properly serviced. No problem.
Buy a car with no seatbelts because the car companies thought it worried people that they might have an accident? No problem.

Idiots.

[Cajuncowboy]

Let me put this in terms that maybe Cajun can understand. Lets say that fancy little bible software you're trying to sell to people was bad. Lets say I plop my cash down and instead of getting a great CD-Rom of parting the red sea, it was parting my hard drive with a virus.

True, after word got out that you were selling bad software, you'd probably go out of business. But not before you sold several thousand copies of it, and wrecked several thousand computers.

Now lets say there was someone who watched over things, say like a district attorney. Someone who you know, you would have to answer to if you weren't selling something on the up and up.

Don't you think as a consumer, I'd feel better buying a product from you if I was pretty sure of what I was getting? Isn't this why most of us choose to go to best buy and buy software, instead of some guy named Vinny who sells things out of the trunk of his car?

First of all, that fancy software is free. You may need a course in remedial reading as well. So you start out with a wrong idea.

Second, if it were mine, and if I were selling it, I would ensure that it didn't have defects. And if it was found to have product defects it would obviously be fixed. Further, if you are harmed in someway by a product defect, you have recourse. In addition to that you seem to think that there is no government regulation now. But the industries that have these regulations are the ones having the problem.

The FDA regulates the food industry, yet we still have food recalls.

The department of education regulates the schools, yet they fail.

The Banks are regulated but they are falling by the wayside.

And the auto industry is regulated out the wazzu and yet they needed and huge bail out.

And you want more????

[Cajuncowboy]

The government run comany had executives cut corners and put people's lives at risk, you're response is that they would have done better with no regulation at all. Fantastic.

And for the record, I don't advocate government involvement in everything, but I sure as hell don't trust these *******s with my food without someone looking over their shoulder.

It's a communist country. They don't have our system there. We are not talking about China, you brought it up. I simply made the point that the government was involved and it didn't stop it.

[Cajuncowboy]

I think you nailed it. This type of argument was exactly the type of arguments the kids who thought they knew everything in junior high put up.

They have no prior knowledge of anything before their 13 years on the planet, they just see the govt as "interfering". They had no idea what it was like before the govt regulated anything.

Sell Rancid beef? No problem.
Get on an airplane that wasn't properly serviced. No problem.
Buy a car with no seatbelts because the car companies thought it worried people that they might have an accident? No problem.

Idiots.

You really think all this nonsense you are spouting?
You are foolish.

Well, your hero has made abother terrible mistake and you want to ignore it.

[CowboyWay]

The FDA regulates the food industry, yet we still have food recalls.

The department of education regulates the schools, yet they fail.

The Banks are regulated but they are falling by the wayside.

And the auto industry is regulated out the wazzu and yet they needed and huge bail out.

And you want more????

1. Before the FDA you were 10,000 times more likely to get sick when you ate.

2. The schools do not fail. I would bet that most of us on this board were all educated by the public schools. Yet there are highly intelligent people on here (outside of you)

3. The banks weren't regulated enough. You have even made this case that Bush wanted tighter restrictions on Freddie and Fannie before the shiznit hit the fan. Looks like you were right. They needed more regulation.

4. The auto industry isn't nearly as regulated as you might believe outside of safety, eco, and some mileage standards. Big whoop. Looks like they could have used some regulation though.

[theogt]

First of all, that fancy software is free. You may need a course in remedial reading as well. So you start out with a wrong idea.

Second, if it were mine, and if I were selling it, I would ensure that it didn't have defects. And if it was found to have product defects it would obviously be fixed. Further, if you are harmed in someway by a product defect, you have recourse. In addition to that you seem to think that there is no government regulation now. But the industries that have these regulations are the ones having the problem.

The FDA regulates the food industry, yet we still have food recalls.

The department of education regulates the schools, yet they fail.

The Banks are regulated but they are falling by the wayside.

And the auto industry is regulated out the wazzu and yet they needed and huge bail out.

And you want more????You have recourse? What kind? You mean like getting trial lawyers and the government involved? I thought you just wanted the market to decide.

Again, you keep with this silly logic that since we can't prevent every harm we shouldn't prevent any harms.

[JBond]

The government run comany had executives cut corners and put people's lives at risk.

That sounds like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and their handling of Freddie and Fannie. They put millions of peoples financial future at risk.

[CowboyWay]

You really think all this nonsense you are spouting?
You are foolish.
And this is typical of the libs in this country. This thread was about how Obama is going to add more regulation to an already struggling industry in which we already sent them a ton of money and you guys want to take the attention off of it.

Well, your hero has made abother terrible mistake and you want to ignore it.

How can you say its a mistake? Do you have a crystal ball? Should we just have given them all the money and said "have fun". "Business as usual"? Ridiculous. Thats what got them in this mess.

[Cajuncowboy]

1. Before the FDA you were 10,000 times more likely to get sick when you ate.

Link?

2. The schools do not fail. I would bet that most of us on this board were all educated by the public schools. Yet there are highly intelligent people on here (outside of you)

Most are public educated. And you are a prime example of why they shouldn't be. And I don;t know what you do to earn a living but I would bet a fairly large amount of money that I have earned more money than you in the last year than you have in your entire life. And I'm the stupid one?

3. The banks weren't regulated enough. You have even made this case that Bush wanted tighter restrictions on Freddie and Fannie before the shiznit hit the fan. Looks like you were right. They needed more regulation.[/qoute]

It was the government program that caused this to fail. What do your think Fannie Mae and Freddie mac was?

[QUOTE=CowboyWay;2604407]4. The auto industry isn't nearly as regulated as you might believe outside of safety, eco, and some mileage standards. Big whoop. Looks like they could have used some regulation though.

Oh, is that all? :lmao:

Keep posting young 'un.

It's fun to watch this.

[Cajuncowboy]

How can you say its a mistake? Do you have a crystal ball? Should we just have given them all the money and said "have fun". "Business as usual"? Ridiculous. Thats what got them in this mess.

We shouldn't have given them the money to start with. But since we did, we sure as heck shouldn't put further restrictions on them that will kill it. That's the most idiotic thing you could do.

[Cajuncowboy]

You have recourse? What kind? You mean like getting trial lawyers and the government involved? I thought you just wanted the market to decide.

Again, you keep with this silly logic that since we can't prevent every harm we shouldn't prevent any harms.

And I submit that business can better regulate themselves.

If you have a bad product then people won't buy it. No company intentionally does this. You think you have less problems because the government got involved?

This is not the 1920's when we didn't have the advanced technologies we do now. Companies are further ahead of the government in their fields.

You just think that business owners are evil people and want to harm people because they are evil capitalists.

Also, government interference cause your costs to go up. Not only with the mandating of superfluous regulations, but with the benefits mandates and the minimum wage.

[theogt]

[/B]

And I submit that business can better regulate themselves.

If you have a bad product then people won't buy it. No company intentionally does this. You think you have less problems because the government got involved?

This is not the 1920's when we didn't have the advanced technologies we do now. Companies are further ahead of the government in their fields.

You just think that business owners are evil people and want to harm people because they are evil capitalists.

Also, government interference cause your costs to go up. Not only with the mandating of superfluous regulations, but with the benefits mandates and the minimum wage.What world do you live in? People are stupid and will buy things that they otherwise shouldn't. Do you think someone was forcing investors to buy toxic mortgage-backed securities? Do you think someone was forcing mortgage originators to make no-doc loans?

The market isn't perfect because people aren't. Even Greenspan recognizes this now (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/24/economics-creditcrunch-federal-reserve-greenspan).

[CowboyWay]

Link?



Most are public educated. And you are a prime example of why they shouldn't be. And I don;t know what you do to earn a living but I would bet a fairly large amount of money that I have earned more money than you in the last year than you have in your entire life. And I'm the stupid one?

I've seen you mention how much money you've made before on this board. I see you like to equate how much you're worth with how smart a person is. Thats very Christian of you. I hope you remember to give his cut.

[QUOTE=CowboyWay;2604407]3. The banks weren't regulated enough. You have even made this case that Bush wanted tighter restrictions on Freddie and Fannie before the shiznit hit the fan. Looks like you were right. They needed more regulation.[/qoute]

It was the government program that caused this to fail. What do your think Fannie Mae and Freddie mac was?
Now thats a simplistic approach. It was a govt program and it failed. Yet you continue to say in other threads that if only the libs would have regulated it the way bush wanted too, we wouldn't be in this mess. Nice.



.

[Cajuncowboy]

What world do you live in? People are stupid [/qoute]

Obviously, Obama is in the White House.

[QUOTE=theogt;2604421]and will buy things that they otherwise shouldn't. Do you think someone was forcing investors to buy toxic mortgage-backed securities? Do you think someone was forcing mortgage originators to make no-doc loans?

The market isn't perfect because people aren't.

Well now that puts a different spin on everything. My bad. I apologize for my ignorance.

Now that I see you want the government to provide you a perfect world I can see where you are coming from.

Utopia is right around the corner.

Heck, keep the faith!

[CowboyWay]

[/B]



Also, government interference cause your costs to go up. Not only with the mandating of superfluous regulations, but with the benefits mandates and the minimum wage.

Not a fan of minimum wage huh? Nice.


Mortimer(as he's signing peoples checks)..........."We seem to be paying alot of people alot of money Winthorpe".

Winthorpe......."Yes, I know Mortimer, we can't seem to get around that minimum wage thing"......

[Cajuncowboy]

[QUOTE=Cajuncowboy;2604414]Link?



Most are public educated. And you are a prime example of why they shouldn't be. And I don;t know what you do to earn a living but I would bet a fairly large amount of money that I have earned more money than you in the last year than you have in your entire life. And I'm the stupid one?

I've seen you mention how much money you've made before on this board. I see you like to equate how much you're worth with how smart a person is. Thats very Christian of you. I hope you remember to give his cut.


You said I was stupid. You don't make that kind of money by being stupid.

And yes, I give a large amount of it away not that it's any of your business.

And what I said about Freddie and fannie was that there were warning over two years ago that there were problems and the dems in charge did nothing to look into it. So keep trying to spin and twist.

[JBond]

What world do you live in? People are stupid and will buy things that they otherwise shouldn't. Do you think someone was forcing investors to buy toxic mortgage-backed securities? Do you think someone was forcing mortgage originators to make no-doc loans?

The market isn't perfect because people aren't. Even Greenspan recognizes this now (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/24/economics-creditcrunch-federal-reserve-greenspan).

Everyone must understand people are stupid. The theogt says so. Everyone must understand that theogt is smarter than all of us and knows more than us. He is the one that should determine how the money you earn is spent. Theogt is the one that defends giving money to failures. His plan is working well so far.

[Cajuncowboy]

Not a fan of minimum wage huh? Nice.


Mortimer(as he's signing peoples checks)..........."We seem to be paying alot of people alot of money Winthorpe".

Winthorpe......."Yes, I know Mortimer, we can't seem to get around that minimum wage thing"......

No, I'm not. what the minimum wage did was set a starting point for workers. Instead of allowing industry to set it at different points for their own situation. For example:

Lets say you have a widget company. You have one guy on the assembly line who is making minimum wage. He is busting his rear end in a hot shop all day.

Then you have a woman who is a secretary who sits and takes phone calls all day.

The you have a salesman who goes out and gets your business all day.

The minimum wage requires that you pay them that minimum.

So say a company says they are only paying that amount. If you have three people who take those jobs under that scenario, is one guy overpaid, one guy underpaid or are all three paid a fair amount?

The point is that with the minimum wage you pigeon hole certain people. If you let the industry set the bar then you get better employees and they make more money because those companies will be competing for the best workers.

It is simple business practice.

[CowboyWay]

[QUOTE=CowboyWay;2604422]


You said I was stupid. You don't make that kind of money by being stupid.

t.

Sure they do. Look at your boy Bush. Dumb as a rock.

[Cajuncowboy]

Everyone must understand people are stupid. The theogt says so. Everyone must understand that theogt is smarter than all of us and knows more than us. He is the one that should determine how the money you earn is spent. Theogt is the one that defends giving money to failures. His plan is working well so far.

No, no, no. He is relying on the government to make his world a perfect place. Don't you see.

The poor little guy can't do that on his own so he needs nanny Obama to make it perfect.

[Cajuncowboy]

[QUOTE=Cajuncowboy;2604425]

Sure they do. Look at your boy Bush. Dumb as a rock.

I'm sure his IQ is higher than yours.

[JBond]

No, I'm not. what the minimum wage did was set a starting point for workers. Instead of allowing industry to set it at different points for their own situation. For example:

Lets say you have a widget company. You have one guy on the assembly line who is making minimum wage. He is busting his rear end in a hot shop all day.

Then you have a woman who is a secretary who sits and takes phone calls all day.

The you have a salesman who goes out and gets your business all day.

The minimum wage requires that you pay them that minimum.

So say a company says they are only paying that amount. If you have three people who take those jobs under that scenario, is one guy overpaid, one guy underpaid or are all three paid a fair amount?

The point is that with the minimum wage you pigeon hole certain people. If you let the industry set the bar then you get better employees and they make more money because those companies will be competing for the best workers.

It is simple business practice.

Minimum wage and and a government mandated school system go hand in hand.

[CowboyWay]

No, I'm not. what the minimum wage did was set a starting point for workers. Instead of allowing industry to set it at different points for their own situation. For example:

Lets say you have a widget company. You have one guy on the assembly line who is making minimum wage. He is busting his rear end in a hot shop all day.

Then you have a woman who is a secretary who sits and takes phone calls all day.

The you have a salesman who goes out and gets your business all day.

The minimum wage requires that you pay them that minimum.

So say a company says they are only paying that amount. If you have three people who take those jobs under that scenario, is one guy overpaid, one guy underpaid or are all three paid a fair amount?

The point is that with the minimum wage you pigeon hole certain people. If you let the industry set the bar then you get better employees and they make more money because those companies will be competing for the best workers.

It is simple business practice.

What about the part where said business decides to pay their people 10% more per hour than what they could farm out the same job to the phillipines for?

You either take it, or starve.

Oh wait. I'm guessing you like it when businesses take their jobs overseas too.

[CowboyWay]

[QUOTE=CowboyWay;2604432]

I'm sure his IQ is higher than yours.

Doubt it. But his daddy is richer than mine. I'll give him that.

[Cajuncowboy]

Minimum wage and and a government mandated school system go hand in hand.

Well, it's late and I'm tired of trying to teach them what they should have learned in school. This is why some people will always be workers and some will always be owners. It's a basic philosophy of grabbing your own bootstraps and just going out and doing it. No one guarantees you will always be successful but the adventure of trying is worth more than any other experience you can have.

I have had very successful business' and I have had some that failed. I was not perfect by any stretch and made decisions that were the wrong ones, but I learned from them.

But anyone CAN be successful if they wanted to and had the right mindset. They just have to choose to do so. When I interview someone for a job, one of the first things I ask them is if they want to own their own business. The ones that say no, I pretty much discard them as they have no ambition.

The ones who say they would like to are the ones who at least have a spark. I like that. they may fail but they will fail trying. WHile the others will fail and do so without even trying.

[CowboyWay]

Maybe they want to own their own businesses so they can get under that $2 per hour you want to pay them.

Goodnight.

[Cajuncowboy]

What about the part where said business decides to pay their people 10% more per hour than what they could farm out the same job to the phillipines for?

You either take it, or starve.

Oh wait. I'm guessing you like it when businesses take their jobs overseas too.

Try to focus and stay on topic. Minimum wage. We are talking about companies who employ people here.

I understand you WANT to change topics because you are on sinking sand right now, but let's stay focused, shall we?

[Cajuncowboy]

Maybe they want to own their own businesses so they can get under that $2 per hour you want to pay them.

Goodnight.

Well if Obama has his way and they do own their own business that may be what they make, less than 2.00 per hour.

And where did I say that's what I want to pay them? I have no one that makes minimum wage. I start people at twice that. What are you talking about?

[JBond]

Try to focus and stay on topic. Minimum wage. We are talking about companies who employ people here.

I understand you WANT to change topics because you are on sinking sand right now, but let's stay focused, shall we?

As I discussed with silverbear, If you do not have the drive, vision and creativity to own your own business, the least you can do is make yourself invaluable to the business you work for.

[Cajuncowboy]

As I discussed with silverbear, If you do not have the drive, vision and creativity to own your own business, the least you can do is make yourself invaluable to the business you work for.

So true. And it's one of the reasons I like people who have a drive to own their own business. They are generally much better workers.

[silverbear]

Yes...by the wonderful solution of marrying greed and corruption on Wall St. to the greed and corruption in Washington. Just brilliant! My simple solution would be: you gamble and lose? you fail.

IOW, you'd just sit by and watch while our economy goes straight in the crapper...

Just brilliant!

[silverbear]

Yeah and those greedy sobs in government are being watched by whom?

The Politics Zone, of course...

[silverbear]

Regulation: The term used by the left that means "we are going to stick our noses in private business and if you don't do it the way we want, we will shut you down."

Regulation isn't as wordy and can fit on a bumper sticker.


Good ol' cajun, he'll go to his grave defending deregulation, no matter how many times deregulation has completely screwed this country...

You know what happens if we follow your chosen path, do away with regulation altogether, just go with the free market model and the consequences be damned??

Well, the LAST time we tried it, we had child labor, 70 hour work weeks (and even then, a working man couldn't adequately provide for his family), and if you got hurt on the job, well, here's your pencil cup, good luck in your future career field, panhandling... you had a country with NO "middle class", just a few really rich folks, and most folks living in or near poverty...

They called it "laissez faire"... and noted historian John Maynard Keynes believed that laissez-faire capitalism is was the root cause of the Great Depression...

Now we've seen yet another failure of deregulation, and as a result our economy is in crisis... how many times must something FAIL before you give up on it??

If you just let business do what they want to do, let them maximize their bottom line, then you'll have them pumping toxins into our rivers and our air (just like happened when Reagan pulled the fangs of the EPA)... they won't offer ANY benefits, no health insurance, no minimum wage...

Big business is an amoral entity, that cares about one thing only-- their profit margin... they'll happily screw the country, even selling their goods to our mortal enemies, if it means more profit for them...

Yeah, that's an America I want to live in...

Now, too much regulation is also a bad thing, and some regulation that we've witnessed in the past 20 years or so was misguided regulation, even stupid regulation... obviously, that's not good either... but deregulation doesn't work, it never has and it never will...

[silverbear]

Now they want regulations but when the republicans looked into Fannie and Freddie and wanted to tighten regulations they were called racists, and witch hunters. So I guess its OK to regulate when everything is going to hell in a hand basket but it isn't OK when everybody is making money hand over fist. Something just doesn't seem right.

It wasn't right then either, obviously... the refusal to regulate Fannie and Freddie was clearly a mistake...

[silverbear]

Do you really think that a company intentionally puts product out there to kill people?

No, they just take shortcuts to improve their profit margin, and that ends up killing people...

[silverbear]

The FDA regulates the food industry, yet we still have food recalls.

While this is true, you ignore the obvious-- that we'd have MORE food recalls, FAR more food recalls, if we didn't have the FDA doing some regulating...

The Banks are regulated but they are falling by the wayside.

Because they weren't sufficiently regulated...

And the auto industry is regulated out the wazzu and yet they needed and huge bail out.

Regulation isn't intended to make sure you're successful, that's your responsibility... the auto companies didn't get in trouble because of the regulation of their business...

[silverbear]

It's a communist country. They don't have our system there. We are not talking about China, you brought it up. I simply made the point that the government was involved and it didn't stop it.


And given that the government involved was incredibly CORRUPT, your point has no validity... if it had been doing the regulatory job it was supposed to do, none of those Chinese children would have died...

No, if regulation is done in a corrupt manner, it won't be a good thing...

[silverbear]

That sounds like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and their handling of Freddie and Fannie. They put millions of peoples financial future at risk.

Yes, they did... but what you don't seem to realize is they did that by OPPOSING further regulation of those two institutions...

So you're basically arguing in favor of regulation, and don't even realize it... ROTFLMAO...

[silverbear]

I don;t know what you do to earn a living but I would bet a fairly large amount of money that I have earned more money than you in the last year than you have in your entire life. And I'm the stupid one?

A completely ridiculous argument, cajun... having made money does not in and of itself make one "smart"...

Mike Vick made a lot of money, would you call him "smart"?? Those lucky yahoos who had oil discovered on their west Texas scrub land, were they "smart"??

In fact, Texans have a saying for folks like that, they say they got "took rich"...
It was the government program that caused this to fail. What do your think Fannie Mae and Freddie mac was?

There's all kinds of ways to make money and not be particularly smart... maybe you can throw a ball through a hoop, or hit a 95 MPH fastball, or sing like an angel... you don't have to be smart to do any of those things... or maybe you just have the good fortune to own a piece of land that has a jillion gallons of oil, or precious metals, under it...

[silverbear]

[/B]

And I submit that business can better regulate themselves.

And I submit that American history has consistently shown us that when business is left unregulated, they regularly do things that are contrary to the public good...

If you have a bad product then people won't buy it. No company intentionally does this

No, they don't deliberately do it... they just cut corners to save money, and in the process crank out an inferior, even dangerous, product...

You think you have less problems because the government got involved?

I'm dead morally certain of it...

When Reagan pulled the fangs of the EPA, a company in Front Royal, sitting directly on the Shenandoah River, name of FMC Viscose (which made the heat tiles for the space shuttle), just took to dumping their PCBs straight into the Shenandoah River... before long, you couldn't eat the fish you caught in those waters, and most folks wouldn't even go swimming or boating in it...

Then the EPA got back their power, and FMC Viscose shut down rather than clean up their mess, just declared bankruptcy... it was up to us the taxpayers to clean up that mess, to save the Shenandoah River...

We did, but it would never have happened if the government hadn't gotten involved...

You just think that business owners are evil people and want to harm people because they are evil capitalists.

Not evil, AMORAL... and history has shown that to be case time and time again... businesses were trading with the Nazis, our enemies...

Also, government interference cause your costs to go up. Not only with the mandating of superfluous regulations, but with the benefits mandates and the minimum wage.

I'm sure you'd like it a lot if you could get away with paying your workers a dollar an hour... think of the extra profits you'd have to invest in growth, so that even more workers could come to work for you for that money...

[SuspectCorner]

Good ol' cajun, he'll go to his grave defending deregulation, no matter how many times deregulation has completely screwed this country...

You know what happens if we follow your chosen path, do away with regulation altogether, just go with the free market model and the consequences be damned??

Well, the LAST time we tried it, we had child labor, 70 hour work weeks (and even then, a working man couldn't adequately provide for his family), and if you got hurt on the job, well, here's your pencil cup, good luck in your future career field, panhandling... you had a country with NO "middle class", just a few really rich folks, and most folks living in or near poverty...

They called it "laissez faire"... and noted historian John Maynard Keynes believed that laissez-faire capitalism is was the root cause of the Great Depression...

Now we've seen yet another failure of deregulation, and as a result our economy is in crisis... how many times must something FAIL before you give up on it??

If you just let business do what they want to do, let them maximize their bottom line, then you'll have them pumping toxins into our rivers and our air (just like happened when Reagan pulled the fangs of the EPA)... they won't offer ANY benefits, no health insurance, no minimum wage...

Big business is an amoral entity, that cares about one thing only-- their profit margin... they'll happily screw the country, even selling their goods to our mortal enemies, if it means more profit for them...

Yeah, that's an America I want to live in...

Now, too much regulation is also a bad thing, and some regulation that we've witnessed in the past 20 years or so was misguided regulation, even stupid regulation... obviously, that's not good either... but deregulation doesn't work, it never has and it never will...

Markets have continually proven their inability to regulate themselves. It's time for Reagan trickledowners to revisit an iconic statement: "Trust - but verify."

[Hoofbite]

Quick show of hands:

How many people in this thread think they are right?

How many think the other side is wrong?

Sweet, just checking to make sure this is a political thread where nobody is ever wrong and everyone else is never right.

With that said, here is the best post of this thread.

Regulation is one of those double edged swords to me.

I would prefer government keep their noses out of business and let the business regulate itself.

However it seems some businesses can not do that and when given the power and self interest they abuse that trust.

When they do abuse the trust and it is a multibillion or more business...who else would have to rope it in?

Double edged sword to be sure.

Why? Because it doesn't involve hypothetical "widget" scenario's or make believe worlds.

I wonder how many of those posters who are in favor of as little regulation as possible had stocks in Enron, Tyco, or all the other huge companies that completely screwed people.

Likewise, I wonder how many of the pro-regulation crowd owns their own business.

IMO, this is the fundamental problem with politics. Everyone is so damn caught up in KNOWING, not thinking but KNOWING that they are right that they give absolutely no thought to the other side of the equation.

As a result, you see garbage policies and garbage outcomes in Washington predicated on the "all for me" attitude where the politicians only work to get as much of what they want as possible. They bend on some issues and stand firm on others. At times, they don't even have a stance but toe the company line in order to get favors back at a later date.

So here's the big question. What are you guys fighting for? Honestly, you guys have nothing to gain, influence nothing at this point and have no say in anything. I can see why people in Washington behave like this, but why are some of you so caught up in KNOWING that you are right? Would it really do that much harm to just concede that the straight Republican or Democrat thought process is at times wrong?

[CowboyWay]

Try to focus and stay on topic. Minimum wage. We are talking about companies who employ people here.

I understand you WANT to change topics because you are on sinking sand right now, but let's stay focused, shall we?

You are the Tr1 of this board.

Spews garbage out that they either don't believe, or just has ideals that are so far out of whack that everyone else laughs at him.


Either way, you're good fodder for this board. Keep it up.

Oh, and please try to stay on topic.:laugh2:

[davidyee]

[/B]

And I submit that business can better regulate themselves.

If you have a bad product then people won't buy it. No company intentionally does this. You think you have less problems because the government got involved?

This is not the 1920's when we didn't have the advanced technologies we do now. Companies are further ahead of the government in their fields.

You just think that business owners are evil people and want to harm people because they are evil capitalists.

Also, government interference cause your costs to go up. Not only with the mandating of superfluous regulations, but with the benefits mandates and the minimum wage.

...I want to point a personal case of mine that can be a counterpoint to your argument.

I also want you to know that I don't believe what you are arguing here is all necessarily untrue or incorrect.

In the not too recent past I was involved with the strategy of a major American company dealing with the resolution of a product model. It was in the large transportation class.

This pertained to the designation of a new emissions standard for engines that came into effect in North America. It was a good standard in my opinion because much of the present production class was based on a standard from the 60's. I was shocked to see the level(lack of) engineering and sophistication when I was introduced to the project!

Engine technology has come so far.

Well, the problem for this company was that even though the gov't was forcing it to abandon the engine class they inadvertently ordered excess engine components and still hadn't paid off much of the toolage for that model.

What did they do? They decided to export it to another country even though there was a better model in a newer factory with better quality. To boot we found out later the alternative could be made for cheaper.

This business, a multi national American Corporation, decided to ship overseas an inferior and more expensive class of vehicle which was deemed in our region to be a polluter, no catalytic converter for example, for what reason???

It's not a across the board example, but I would say it is a pertinent example showing that not ALL businesses do things for the sake of consumer protection, quality and customer satisfaction.

There are other agendas and one should avoid using ideologies and global statements to justify everything.

If there is one that can be true about this world there is an infinite shade of gray between the black and white stance.

[davidyee]

Quick show of hands:

How many people in this thread think they are right?

How many think the other side is wrong?

Sweet, just checking to make sure this is a political thread where nobody is ever wrong and everyone else is never right.

With that said, here is the best post of this thread.



Why? Because it doesn't involve hypothetical "widget" scenario's or make believe worlds.

I wonder how many of those posters who are in favor of as little regulation as possible had stocks in Enron, Tyco, or all the other huge companies that completely screwed people.

Likewise, I wonder how many of the pro-regulation crowd owns their own business.

IMO, this is the fundamental problem with politics. Everyone is so damn caught up in KNOWING, not thinking but KNOWING that they are right that they give absolutely no thought to the other side of the equation.

As a result, you see garbage policies and garbage outcomes in Washington predicated on the "all for me" attitude where the politicians only work to get as much of what they want as possible. They bend on some issues and stand firm on others. At times, they don't even have a stance but toe the company line in order to get favors back at a later date.

So here's the big question. What are you guys fighting for? Honestly, you guys have nothing to gain, influence nothing at this point and have no say in anything. I can see why people in Washington behave like this, but why are some of you so caught up in KNOWING that you are right? Would it really do that much harm to just concede that the straight Republican or Democrat thought process is at times wrong?

...this is a common problem in society today in which the ideology of being right is so tantamount that it blinds those into ignoring that there may be another viewpoint that is just a likely to be correct.

In effect there is more than one right answer and more than one wrong answer.

The true goal is; Along the journey you cannot denigrate and destroy the humanity of others just for the sake of your opinion.

If we do we lower ourselves to the level of animals.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Quick show of hands:

How many people in this thread think they are right?

How many think the other side is wrong?

Sweet, just checking to make sure this is a political thread where nobody is ever wrong and everyone else is never right.

With that said, here is the best post of this thread.



Why? Because it doesn't involve hypothetical "widget" scenario's or make believe worlds.

I wonder how many of those posters who are in favor of as little regulation as possible had stocks in Enron, Tyco, or all the other huge companies that completely screwed people.

Likewise, I wonder how many of the pro-regulation crowd owns their own business.

IMO, this is the fundamental problem with politics. Everyone is so damn caught up in KNOWING, not thinking but KNOWING that they are right that they give absolutely no thought to the other side of the equation.

As a result, you see garbage policies and garbage outcomes in Washington predicated on the "all for me" attitude where the politicians only work to get as much of what they want as possible. They bend on some issues and stand firm on others. At times, they don't even have a stance but toe the company line in order to get favors back at a later date.

So here's the big question. What are you guys fighting for? Honestly, you guys have nothing to gain, influence nothing at this point and have no say in anything. I can see why people in Washington behave like this, but why are some of you so caught up in KNOWING that you are right? Would it really do that much harm to just concede that the straight Republican or Democrat thought process is at times wrong?

The thing about this is that everybody can find valid arguments for less regulation or more regulation.

We have seen examples of both hurting a business or making a business better.

More regulation in the credit/banking industry could be used as an example of making banks give loans to people that hold no reasonable way to pay those loans back.

However we have seen things like enron where they were going crazy because of the lack of regulation and it was the business and most of the employees that were hurt by it.

So I guess people figure they either have to say less or more regulation and think they are right 100% of the time when we can all see that the world is not just black and white.

I have stated in the past that it is not an idea of more or less regulation...what needs to be done is smart or better regulation. That might mean less regulations, it might be more.

You just can not let million/billion dollar industries go unregulated because the lure of power and money will always corrupt it. However putting too much regulation on a business will choke it to death as well.

Smarter or better regulations are what is need along with good oversight to make sure the regulations are followed. Because as silly as saying we need good oversight for things that are already being regulated might seem...that too has been a problem.

[JBond]

Yes, they did... but what you don't seem to realize is they did that by OPPOSING further regulation of those two institutions...

So you're basically arguing in favor of regulation, and don't even realize it... ROTFLMAO...

We have been through this many times already. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd forced banks to make unsound loans. Barack Obama personally sued Citi for the same reasons. They strong armed banks to make unsound loans. Janet Reno was in on the act with Clinton in 1999 also.

Bush and McCain both pleaded for reform on multiple occasions, but were blocked at every turn by democrats who were personally profiting from these banks.

Do not confuse reform with more regulation. They are not necessarily the same thing.

[arglebargle]

We have been through this many times already. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd forced banks to make unsound loans. Barack Obama personally sued Citi for the same reasons. They strong armed banks to make unsound loans. Janet Reno was in on the act with Clinton in 1999 also.

Bush and McCain both pleaded for reform on multiple occasions, but were blocked at every turn by democrats who were personally profiting from these banks.

Do not confuse reform with more regulation. They are not necessarily the same thing.

No, you repeat these things until you believe them. Because it is a way to throw blame to the other party for the issue. A great talking point.

Were there problems with the approach? Sure. There were also serious problems with redlining, which most of you here never had to deal with, because that got quashed. But most of the fatcat banks that fueled the subprime and derivitives market were not under these regulations, and were all about the fast cash and big bonuses. They weren't worried about these regulations. They were counting their next quarterly bonus.

And we know, of course, that the politicians didn't try to 'reform' Fannie Mae/Mac to gain more power over them, and get them to contribute to their campaign funds. Oh no, they'd never do that.... Certainly not at the same time they were running the K Street scam.

Look, setting up too many unwise loans is a bad thing. No arguement. But if you can't see that this has become a political excuse, well....