The Goat Pen

Heh. Wrong county.

Just give me time...

I knew I should have guessed Hazzard

Hazzard! Lmao

listening to NPR this morning about how sequestration hasn't turned out to be this big painful event for Americans.

granted, there are some people that have felt it - particularly any business tied to government defense contracting, but essentially the entitlements were left untouched

their point is that this hasn't motivated republicans or democrats into seriously tackling the problem, and republicans are claiming a victory even though the cuts do nothing to go after the spending that is going to keep growing and increasing the deficit.

That is going to put America into another sticker shock down the road and even be more pissed at politicians when those Americans who are only casually paying attention see we have another 800b - 1.1tr deficit again with defense spending cuts already in place.

nobody's paying attention to sequesterizationism because they've been too busy filling out their brackets. them chickens will come home to roost after the FF.

Sequester killed 3 more marines and a wave yesterday...or was that gun control?

10ac wrote:Sequester killed 3 more marines and a wave yesterday...or was that gun control?

if anyone in uniform is in danger because of budget cuts then they need to be back on base doing nothing

A-freakin'-men...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 17603.html

This is why regulation and oversight won't solve the big bank problem...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/22/busin ... d=all&_r=0

AA, bought a Turkish 1911 today, a company called Tisas. Its a carbon copy of a Springfield. Never heard of 'em but Buds is selling them by the bucket load

I'm going to get me a CZ 9mm in about 2 months.

sardis wrote:This is why regulation and oversight won't solve the big bank problem...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/22/busin ... d=all&_r=0

When the CDX issue first hit with JPM I brushed it off as a shareholder issue, not a government one. The more I'm learning about it tells me that while it is primarily a shareholder issue, the government poking around into the losses has exposed a host of concerns that probably would have been swept away if not for Congressional hearings. No shareholder meeting or Board meeting would sift through all the bullshit and lay out the record in a such a public manner.

Right, but hearings after years of sifting through stuff is too little too late to prevent these things from happening. These investments are too sophisticated for regulators to keep up with and there is incestuous corruption that exists between Wall Street and regulators. There will have to be a bailout in the future and, maybe then, we won't have the borrowing capacity to do it.

Break them up is the only answer.

Could require a govt insurance for those deemed too big to fail

Yeah, that makes sense.
they would pay premiums to the government who would spend that money on Obamacare for Mexicans and when the bank was about to fail, they would hit the taxpayer again. rinse - repeat

Obamacare doesn't cover Mexicans or illegal aliens

try again

Yet

BINGO!

Owlman wrote:Could require a govt insurance for those deemed too big to fail

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. If it's government insurance what's the difference than a bailout?

sardis wrote:

Owlman wrote:Could require a govt insurance for those deemed too big to fail

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. If it's government insurance what's the difference than a bailout?

I don't believe anything is too big to fail. I'm not sure how the average American could have endured much more pain from letting Wall Street tank - the stock market lost 50% of it value, millions of Americans lost on paper at least that much in their 401Ks and their housing - probably what 80% of Americans have to claim equity in took at least a 30% hit even in the most conservative stable housing markets. They still aren't close to recovering that back while the companies that are bailed out have enjoyed 4 years of steady growth with noticeably large cash reserves. Would the dollar have crashed had they let it play out and then everyone loses everything? Would we have seen 25% unemployment? perhaps but I don't think so. Would the economy recover faster without the government spending trillions to artificially prop it up? If you believe the government is the answer to solving our economic problems versus being the reason because of it then you'd support even more government involvement. Those of us in the latter category want less.

You notice the government has had two huge bluffs in the past 5 years - The first was when Paulson said we were on the economic brink if we didn't act immediately , which we didn't , and the world didn't collapse, and then Obama's dire consequences of sequestration which has had little effect on the daily lives of Americans.

My point is that I don't believe you can trust the government to tell us who is too big to fail - because they are simply serving the interest of the money that has access to them - and we've seen in the actions following these bailouts where its pretty standard to recognize the equivalent of money laundering at the corporate scale was going on as well as lying to congress under oath that our government had no intention of prosecuting. Had this happened in China, there would have been public executions of those guilty.