Comments on: Obama Seeks More Control Of Capitalism

By: Liberals Demise

Liberals Demise — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 15:37:17 +0000

……………. surely you jest, MR!!

By: proreason

proreason — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:24:41 +0000

“What Obama does is introducing a change in rules of the game”

The mess resulted from government intervention in the markets. Period.

The mortgage industry was the most conservative business in the world for 60 years, then the government forced it to make bad loans, and forced it to spread the risk. The industry complied because it had to and now the government is insisting on a new regulatory framework

It’s like a rapist telling women how to dress so he doesn’t rape again.

The regulations needed are restrictions on the government.

By: wondersz1

wondersz1 — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 08:52:53 +0000

If the current supervisory frame doesn’t work, it needs to be changed for a better one. What Obama does is introducing a change in rules of the game. The corporations have failed to stand up the tough times on their own, putting at risk the whole of the financial system. Banks want to make money in a reckless way, accumulating toxic debts as they go. If it really is fine with everybody, why not leave it as it stands now? If we feel we need change, we have it. If we feel different changes are needed, where are the other suggestions?
I believe what Obama does here is right.

By: wondersz1

wondersz1 — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 08:36:20 +0000

‘I guess obama and the left have a different dictionary they’re using when definining temporary. Maybe they’ll let go of the companies in a hundred years or after all of them have been driven so far into the ground they are worthless and can’t even be saved with private takeover.’
Most likely these companies would go bankrupt long before 100 years. It is without this state support that they would probably be driven into the ground. I don’t think someone including state would want pump in moneys to the private companies with no guarantees that the company can stand up against crisis in the next period.

Maybe they’ll let go of the companies in a hundred years

How about a different timeline? After the crisis is over (2-3 years hopefully), I believe we can expect the government stake in those companies reduced and subsequently sold to the private sector investors.

But the idea that the goverment needs to control people who are reckless in their financial dealings is absurd.

Entirely agree. Don’t think what Obama wants here is government-budgeted free financial advisory to the reckless. Rather the banks were reckless when the gave credits with no prospective return at all. If they gave 100 ‘low-probability return’ mortgages, waiting for defaulted people to pay it off, that was reckless. The policy really means for banks to become a bit more down-to-earth when giving out long-term credits and accumulate toxic (no-return) assets and then presenting nice-looking reporting charts to state financial agencies.

By: canary

canary — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 02:46:15 +0000

Democracy, Capitalism, are historically bad words to Obama. He’s bitter that both of his fathers’ and theirs capitalized by working with whites. The U.S. Democracy and Capitalism has ruined the world.

By: gipper

gipper — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 00:17:53 +0000

“He looks kind of …….evil.”

Pro, that’s “Dr. Evil” to you. BHO didn’t attend 4 years of evil medical school to be called “Mr.”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty39ABNfG9U

By: proreason

proreason — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 00:04:31 +0000

Interesting photo of The Moron. Where’s Mr. Niceguy?

It must be the lighting. He looks kind of …….evil.

By: JohnMG

JohnMG — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 23:56:43 +0000

Nice catch, t-n-p……”democrat politics……..some other organized crime outfit.”

Perfect fit!

By: take_no_prisoners

take_no_prisoners — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 23:38:27 +0000

Let’s face it, Obama is a wise guy. He knows how to play fast and loose with the rules and he can usually talk his way out of a tough situation. If he hadn’t gone into democrat politics he would probably be working for some other organized crime outfit and be doing just as well or better.

By: neocon mom

neocon mom — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:30:22 +0000

Please remember that Obama often does the opposite of what he says. Especially when it’s an idea that seems sane.
Like when he famously said that he would go “line by line” through the federal budget and cut out unnecessary stuff. And of course this was followed by porkulus and the biggest proposed operating budget we’ve ever seen. Then he fires the I.G. for Americorps after he found waste, fraud and duplicated programs.
I could go on and on of course, (he doesn’t want to take over car manufacturers, banks, he thinks we need to reduce the number of abortions that occur, he believes the 2nd Amendment gives the individual the right to own firearms, just the beginning.)

By: MinnesotaRush

MinnesotaRush — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:18:46 +0000

“Obama Seeks More Control Of Capitalism” …

So .. he found a little left somewhere, ay.

By: MinnesotaRush

MinnesotaRush — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 20:21:56 +0000

This is rich …

“WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is ready to roll out an overhaul of the intricate rules and systems that govern America’s troubled financial institutions..” … ESPECIALLY after just reading this … “Vice President Joe Biden says “everyone guessed wrong” on the impact of the economic stimulus.”

More “guesswork”, boys???

“Imagine today’s financial transactions as an athletic contest where the referees have lost their vantage point. Plays occur out of their sight and fouls go undetected. Some referees halt play while others let it go on.”

Like Fanny & Freddy, boys???

“Even the players have had enough.”

Really??? Would that be those political players like Dodd, Frank, Raines, Emmanuel, o-blah-blah, et al … They’ve had enough, huh. Better check their accounts and holdings – on and off shore!

Where’s the Constitutional authority for all this??? Oooops .. silly me!

By: proreason

proreason — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 16:42:11 +0000

“These regulations might be really necessary”

Probably true.

All the more reason to have people other than the ones responsible for the mess in the first place planning LIMITED, MEASURABLE, ENFORCABLE, FLEXIBLE new guideline that do not hamstring business, but allow business to operate in a profitable manner, while limiting the now better understood inherant risks.

Now, what are the chances that the fascist Obamunist administration will be able to do that?

Personally, I don’t like the criminals re-writing the laws.

By: bousquem

bousquem — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 16:36:31 +0000

“Unlike the government’s temporary ownership stake in automakers and major financial companies”

I guess obama and the left have a different dictionary they’re using when definining temporary. Maybe they’ll let go of the companies in a hundred years or after all of them have been driven so far into the ground they are worthless and can’t even be saved with private takeover.

I have a problem when people are lied to about products and get into trouble that way. But the idea that the goverment needs to control people who are reckless in their financial dealings is absurd. Who’s fault is it if some idiot decides to take out a loan they can never pay back to buy a house they’ll never be able to afford the taxes on let alone actually paying off the actual loan for the house. It seems like the annoited one and his cronies think that it’s the bank’s fault and therefore all the rest of us have to pay for their mistakes.

By: wondersz1

wondersz1 — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 16:32:43 +0000

These regulations might be really necessary. If you have large corporations and institutions bolstering the economy of the country (btw not only that of US) and deeply integrated in everyday transactions of people (starting from deposit card withdrawal to taking out a mortgage) going bankrupt, I don’t think anyone would stand aside watching that happen.
Basically, if we do nothing but pumping millions of dollars into collapsing corporations, we simply prolong their collapse. To change that, we need to change how these corporations are regulated by the state. If that requires better controls (it really does), they should be in place.

By: proreason

proreason — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 15:50:18 +0000

“Consumers and lenders whose unwitting or reckless credit and borrowing decisions placed families under staggering debts ”

We deserve to be punished. Like Bush, white people, capitalism, America lovers, businessmen, gun clingers and religion clingers, consumers have been reckless and placed black families and other patriotic liberals under staggering debts.

Fortunately, now we have someone in complete charge who enjoys punishing people for their misdeeds.