U.S. Politics Thread

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

Either action will do. Just do it.

If only, but on the off chance that it does, I propose we celebrate it as the National F-you Big Banks Day.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

Either action will do. Just do it.

Given the economic warfare with China, the reason why they want to avoid breaking up the big banks is because they didn't want China to buy any of them. By making them ridiculously big, China can't afford them.

Of course, it becomes a double edged sword when the Big Bank buys up the Congress.......

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Given the economic warfare with China, the reason why they want to avoid breaking up the big banks is because they didn't want China to buy any of them. By making them ridiculously big, China can't afford them.

Of course, it became a double edged sword when the Big Bank bought up Congress.......

Fixed for correction.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

Fixed for correction.

C'mon show some respect for the Yanks! At least they didn't completely sell out to BANKS; there are minor asset holders like Big Religion, ROK, China, Military Industrial Complex, etc.

It is called a "diversified investment in the government for the betterment of the world." Have you hugged a corporation today?

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Given the economic warfare with China, the reason why they want to avoid breaking up the big banks is because they didn't want China to buy any of them. By making them ridiculously big, China can't afford them.

They can move to China for all I care. With the way things are, all I hear is one BS excuse after another.

[Solace]

Congress has only two choices. The big banks can be nationalized and treated as public utilities. The public would pocket their profits and cover their losses. Or the big banks can be broken up, and be accountable to both the law and the market.

Both options are unpalatable, and particularly toxic in a lot of ways.

Option 1: Nationalize the banks. Can you imagine the conservative uproar over this? Never mind that this is already true, because these banks cannot exist without the government propping them up, the GOP and Tea Party would have a field day inciting riots over "big government".

Option 2: Break them up and hold them accountable. Also political suicide. For one, this means airing out a lot of dirty laundry that many of these deal makers would rather you not see. Particularly groups like the Fed and the DoJ. For another, this still requires at least partial Nationalization to keep the system stable until the job is done. Which brings you back to Option 1.

By putting this pain off instead of dealing with it when the public would be most open to drastic action, the government and big business have not only left those problems unfixed, but also made them far, far worse. You should not be cheering that the Dow is hitting record highs when most other indicators reflect nothing seriously positive about the economy. That's actually a really, really bad sign that several bubbles are going to pop.

Personally, my worry is not that this is ending. That's not an if, but a when. My worry is what replaces it. The country is so divided and distrustful of leadership that I see no reason people won't be rioting when the market crashes again.

And yes, this is doom and gloom, but honestly, for all my optimism, I can't see how things are going to get better before they get worse. There's just no momentum for it.

[willx]

^ Disagree. Vehemently. Too much focus on financial institutions and not the regulatory environment and government economic policy.

I'm going to stand on a box now and proclaim: "Too big to fail is a misnomer; the problems that caused the financial crisis are a structural economic problem. Small banks would still have caused a credit bubble and in failing would have resulted in more actual bank runs by the typical depositor."

Let this statement stand that over the next years and decades to come I believe I will be proven right and vindicated. People need to look themselves in the eye and think about the standard of life they are entitled to, what that means in their voting patterns and ultimately how that results in policy that creates credit bubbles, encourages unsustainable levels of home ownership and debt fueled consumer spending. Most people aren't Special, they don't deserve to take 2 nice vacations a year, own a flatscreen TV, 2 cars and more++++ on a standard median income.

I think: "What we'll see [once normalized for QE/QE2/QE∞ is a long period of tepid economic growth. Consumer is going to retrench and start shedding debt. The economy should shrink as it reduces excess levels of leverage. Debt burden in particular that fueled non-efficient expansion of the economy is going to be a drag going forward. This will go hand-in-hand with a fall in real wages and overall civil unrest. Too bad. This is the opposite of the story of the grasshopper saving for the future; the future has been consumed and now needs to be rebuilt .. slowly. Retirees are going to suffer. Pensions are going to go up in flames."

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

No one is saying small banks can't fail; we are saying no one should be immune from their own mistakes.

When it is now known that banks reaching critical mass would become immune to monetary losses AND can't be prosecuted, it becomes open season for banks to do whatever they want.

[ganbaru]

Smaller States Find Outsize Clout Growing in Senate: The disproportionate power enjoyed in the Senate by small states is playing a growing role in the political dynamic on issues as varied as gun control, immigration and campaign finance.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...ml?ref=us&_r=0

... Others say the country needs to make changes to preserve its democratic vitality. They have called for an overhaul of the Constitution, as far-fetched an idea as that may be.

“The Senate constitutes a threat to the vitality of the American political system in the 21st century,” said Sanford Levinson, a law professor at the University of Texas, “and it warrants a constitutional convention to rectify it.”

[GDB]

Humorous that they call the Sentate a threat, when the House is the place where the worst of it goes on. Only accountable to a small group of people who will vote on you regardless? Yeah, that seems legit.

[Ithekro]

The balance of power was actually the point of the Senate as the upper house. To maintain the balance of power in the states by giving each state two votes that were above the House of Representatives, which is population based. In the House, the small states get one, sometimes three seats to the large states 10 to 25 votes (or more in a few cases).

What they are worried about is that the smaller states can overwhelm the "popular vote" in the Senate and thus potentally crush things that favor "the majority" of Americans. That was sort of the point. So that the majority of the population could not dictate what the United States would do over the minority. At least at the State level.

[Archon_Wing]

Well, none of this matters, as long as they draw districts to their advantage.

GOP: OMG! That area has minorities. Let's draw around it.

[Ithekro]

I don't recall districts mattering in the Senate.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

Well, none of this matters, as long as they draw districts to their advantage.

GOP: OMG! That area has minorities. Let's draw around it.

Both sides do this, unfortunately. The bigger issue is that while the population has grown, the number of representatives has not. We need more members of the House, not less, as strange as that sounds.

[Ithekro]

I am hoping that Puerto Rico's bid or statehood goes though and they are forced to add more into the House to cover their five or so representatives and finally shift the numbers upward since 1959.

[ganbaru]

Defending conservatism, Rubio says 'we don't need a new idea'
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ed-a-new-idea/
Missing the obvious once again...

[KiraYamatoFan]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Defending conservatism, Rubio says 'we don't need a new idea'
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ed-a-new-idea/
Missing the obvious once again...

GOP doomed for failure once again.

Dear, oh dear. Talk about how to alienate swing voters...

[Anh_Minh]

Swing voters don't matter that much.

An election campaign for the most part is about activation, not persuasion

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Swing voters don't matter that much.

"Unfortunately, many of the conventional wisdoms parroted by the media are either contentious or flat out wrong,

It's why I tune out many of their garbage. TV News is... outright awful. At the same time, I'm trying to throw out the terms left, right, liberal, and conservative. Gotta take it issue by issue.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Swing voters don't matter that much.

That's by design. That's why America doesn't have compulsory voting; both sides are afraid that they aren't the real majority, and that if everyone votes they would lose.

They don't want swing voters to matter. That would require moderation of policies.

Just fight over swing states, and only fight to please your party faithful. The rest of the nation can get lost.

Ironically, because the current party faithful of the Democrats are actually former Republicans decades ago who jumped ship, they moved to the center rather than Left. And that's why Obama has the voting advantage. GOP's party faithful however is further right.

All because moderate Republicans had to go somewhere after they got kicked out.