The economy has dominated the news and sparked some intense political debate of late. An issue that has come to the forefront of that debate is regarding how or if Wall Street should be regulated. I was watching MSNBC’s the Ed show Wednesday and a Right wing commentator kept going on about how the America people trusted the private sector more than the government when it came to free enterprise and good old fashioned capitalism. And she said most Americans believe in capitalism. And she was absolutely right about Americans believing in capitalism. There’s just one problem. Wall Street and most of the big corporations have not been practicing capitalism for many, many years.
One of the strongest arguments for a public option concerning the health care reform debate is to increase competition. Yet the Republicans are against it. Why? Isn’t competition at the heart of capitalism? It’s becoming very clear that the Right is not and has not been interested in competition for a good long time. What they have been doing is fixing the game.
I believe that dissatisfaction with any economic system whether it be capitalist, socialist, communist, or even fascist is not because of the core principals of these systems. The dissatisfaction is because these systems are seldom if ever practiced in a fair and honest manner. We are told our system is a capitalist one.
Merriam, Webster
Main Entry: cap·i·tal·ism Pronunciation: \ka-pə-tə-liz-əm, kap-tə, British also kə-pi-tə-\
Function: noun Date: 1877
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.
COMPETITION IN A FREE MARKET! This is the core of true capitalism. Yet the majority of big business and the financial institutions that support them have subverted the principals of true capitalism and have turned our economic system into one that is more like corporate fascism. Through the political arm of corporate America, the Republican Party, they have deregulated, provided tax loophole after tax loophole resulting in legalized tax evasion, and built a yellow brick road to the land of off shoring assets and jobs and the obscene profit for which it stands.
But things they are a changing. Yesterday the White House announced they were ordering corporations that received TARP money to slash the salaries of their top 25 executives by 90%. In addition any executive wishing to spend more than $25,000 on perks like using the company jet will have to get permission. Apparently the time limit for using the TARP money for what the government wanted on their own is up. Another promising sign is a move to make lifting the Anti-trust exemption the health insurance industry currently enjoys part of the health care reform bill. And that’s not all. The House Financial Services Committee is expected to vote on Thursday on legislation creating a new agency called the Consumer Protection Agency. And get this. Republicans on the committee suggested the bill creating the agency include a 5 year sunset clause along with total deregulation of the banking system. Rachel Maddow wondered if these were the same guys that are on the “replace the water in fire hydrants to kerosene” committee.
I am truly hopeful that we are seeing the beginnings of the end of corporate fascism and a return to a truer form of good old capitalism. And accepting human nature the only way to achieve that will be through thorough regulation with the teeth to enforce it. This along with a more reasonable tax system that recognizes that a government needs to be operated at a level that truly reflects the needs and desires of the people. Not a government operated at a bare minimum leaving infrastructures to crumble and no jam on the bottom shelf.
*************
Devin Barber, Politics Correspondent
Devin’s column, “Left Of The Right” published weekly or more to Gather Essentials: Politics is a Blue Collar Democrats take on current political news.
Devin was raised by proud Roosevelt Democrats. Being the son of parents counted among the throng of Americans displaced by the Great Depression has given Devin a deep rooted passion for causes dealing with the poor and the working class.
You can find all of Devin’s columns at LEFT OF THE RIGHT
You can keep up with Devin’s postings and his Gather activity by joining his Gather network. Just click here: Devin Barber and then select the orange “Connect” button on the left-hand side of the page.
You can find Devin and other Political Correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other politics experts at Politics.gather.com.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 202
"an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth."
I do not "know" that. Rather I know for a act that your statement is false.
Please don't use "everyone knows" as support for an unsupportable statement. Even one person disagreeing with you proves your statement to be false on the faxe of it.
The government moderated insurance system currently in place for federal workers and members of Congress has a "public option" which has not stopped the other participating private insurance companies fro making a fair profit.
Rita, you guys keep spouting that number. Where does it come from? Do you have proof?
Like Elsie said above, you don't need insurance to take care of your health. You just need to be responsible enough to know that your health care is just as important as having a roof over your head and food on the table. And young people need to be trained from the earliest days to buy insurance or to put aside money each month for doctor's bills. That's how my parents trained me. And that's how I trained my son. What's wrong with the rest of the country?
Have you seen the projected costs to each of us for this handy-dandy health care? My husband and I will be required to pay about $3500 more per year in what they're calling premiums but is really a tax, just so people who have been irresponsible will also be able to see doctors. Our health care options will be diminished and will cost more. And you wonder why I'm not in favor of this?!?
Do you realize that all proposed bills are scheduled to go into effect in 2012 or 2013, but we'll be paying for the future care from the moment they pass these bills and can set up the accounting/payment/fee schedules?
And do you realize that none of the proposed bills cover everyone? There will still be people who are not covered.
So let's recap that. Everyone who now has insurance will pay much more. Everyone who is happy with his/her health care will no longer be happy with it because the care will diminish. There will be a government agency that decides everything - from what is "normal" care, to how much we will pay for insurance (or the public option - there will be a cost to everyone for that as well - it's not free). Medicare and Medicaid will be affected, because they're going to steal money from those existing programs to help move the new one along.
The program won't start right away.
And there will still be people without insurance or health care.
Does that really sound like the jerks in Washington have done something smart? No!
And that's why the Republicans are against everything sitting there now.
But because this is exactly what Obama wants, they are not allowed to scrap what's there now and start over with something smart that reduces costs to everyone and covers more people. Why? Because it wouldn't be the government taking over everything.
Wake up people!
Worst possible start to anything YOU write, Marilyn.
Put down the Kool-aid and have a cup of coffee!
And as to Congress not being "allowed" to scrap everything and start over, don't make me laugh. The insurance industry is too heavily invested in the status quo (including bribes (I mean "donations") to Congress) to ever sit still for any such thing.
Having lived in one of these countries, I have seen it in action.
GOOD! Let the bastards go out of business!
John, all you have to do is use common sense. A government program that doesn't have to break even, let alone make a profit, is not competition for private insurance. It's a way to get rid of private insurance. Period. Even Obama admitted that in an interview. Anyone who understands business knows this. "
Getting rid of private insurance is the best idea I have heard. I do not understand how anyone would be for placing their health care in the hands of a for profit corportion. As Spartan said "Let the bastards go out of business."
BTW Marilyn you use the phrase "common sense" as if you had some. Wrong.
Lee says: Then let's get these people some kind of catastrophic care insurance instead of throwing the whole system into turmoil. Fix what's broken don't fix what isn't broken. The system is broken for that 45000. The system may even be broken for the 12mil who don't have access. We could even use the 45mil statistic which was being bandied about for a while. Fix it for those people.
I think I used the example once, somewhere, of a quote I found which describes this situation perfectly.
"Don't bring a hatchet to kill a fly on your friend's head"
The gov ie prez and leftists in gov want to tear down everything to fix what's wrong with a small portion. They are bringing a hatchet to swat a fly on our foreheads.
Of course, that saying assumes the person on whose forehead the fly has landed is your friend. If not then it makes perfect sense to bring that hatchet - even though the person's forehead will be destroyed.
Rita B. Oct 22, 2009, 1:14pm EDT
Can't agree Marilyn. 45,000 people die each year because of no coverage. These arm chair insurance agencies rake in the money without doing a darn thing but drink coffee in their comfy chairs denying others care they deserve. They even have the gall to call certain groups dogs and train wrecks because they have health problems. Rape is even denied care now.
Lee says: Did you know that Beverage companies, brewers ... wineries ... distillers make more than Accident and Health Insurance as well as more than Health plans (who are ranked 7 places lower than Accident and Health in terms of their net profit margin)?
I have no doubt they are also slated to be put on the President's enemies list at some future time; but for the moment one of the big boogey men is Health insurance companies and their offered plans, even though they rank about 81 places lower than breweries in terms of what their net profit margin is (as of Oct 2009).
Health insurance plans rank about 70-78 places lower in terms of net profit margin than Cigarette companies. Health insurance plans rank about 42 places lower than soft drink companies on that same scale.
And, not that I have a problem with their profits but those of you who do .... Pharmaceutical manufacturers place just 6th from the top in regard to their actual profits ... The same companies the Huffington Post talks about here? The same one the NY Times talks about here? Rita B. Oct 22, 2009, 1:14pm EDT
Can't agree Marilyn. 45,000 people die each year because of no coverage. These arm chair insurance agencies rake in the money without doing a darn thing but drink coffee in their comfy chairs denying others care they deserve. They even have the gall to call certain groups dogs and train wrecks because they have health problems. Rape is even denied care now.
Lee says: Not quite as bad as what I've been called for simply disagreeing with the President. And what I've been called doesn't even compare to the nastiness some others who oppose the President have been subjected to ...
Rita B. Oct 22, 2009, 1:14pm EDT
Can't agree Marilyn. 45,000 people die each year because of no coverage. These arm chair insurance agencies rake in the money without doing a darn thing but drink coffee in their comfy chairs denying others care they deserve. They even have the gall to call certain groups dogs and train wrecks because they have health problems. Rape is even denied care now.
Lee says: That is one of those things which can be addressed IF we will address it. No need to toss the baby out with the bathwater, no need to cut the arm off because of a broken finger. And while pruning definitely needs to be done, there is absolutely no need for a hatchett when a hand-pruner will do.
Rita B. Oct 22, 2009, 1:14pm EDT
Can't agree Marilyn. 45,000 people die each year because of no coverage. These arm chair insurance agencies rake in the money without doing a darn thing but drink coffee in their comfy chairs denying others care they deserve. They even have the gall to call certain groups dogs and train wrecks because they have health problems. Rape is even denied care now.
My daughter lives in a service area that sold out to a private company, now the community is buying back the water system at a great cost, but it will still pay-off in the long term.
Some things, water, health care, food purity, and others, cannot be left to "self regulation."
Bingo! The free market is a mythical beast, like the Jabberwocky.
We could have a free market but to gain that very desirable state requires that we change the fundamental nature of our money. As our money is, history shows a free market to be impossible. (Pick your nation and your time and you will fail to find any free markets.)
And while GW Bush had 36 czars in eight years, Obama has nearly that many after eight months. And we all know how much he wants to out-do Bush....in every way.
"One of the strongest arguments for a public option concerning the health care reform debate is to increase competition."
Then why only add one source of competition, when there are over 1300 insurance companies in the nation??? Why not allow every company, to compete in every state? The left likes to compare Health Care with Car Insurance. The difference is the car insurers can compete in every state, health insurers can't.
"I am truly hopeful that we are seeing the beginnings of the end of corporate fascism and a return to a truer form of good old capitalism. And accepting human nature the only way to achieve that will be through thorough regulation with the teeth to enforce it"
First of all this is a contradiction, increased regulation does not lead to a truer form of Capitalism. It leads to what your article is really promoting a truer form of Progressive Socialism.
"Then why only add one source of competition, when there are over 1300 insurance companies in the nation??? Why not allow every company, to compete in every state?"
You are not limiting the list to HEALTH insurance companies, which drastically decreases the number. You also forget to mention that virtually NONE of those health insurance companies are actively competing against each other.
In addition to an open competitive market for ALL health insurance. we need to avoid price fixing, and the public option is the way to do that.
No, the right is the one comparing car insurance to health insurance. I keep hearing that argument from the right. The real question to ask is why do we need health insurance companies at all? Have you asked that one?
By allowing health insurance companies to compete across state lines will put us in even deeper crap than we have now. Insurance companies have no real interest in competition of any kind. Those who used to be a part of the competitive edge are now the monopolizing factors all over the country. They are the ones who forced out smaller more efficient companies and took over 50% and in some areas 80% of the patients in health care. I don't know why anyone would think they will suddenly have a change in heart because they could sell all over the country.
There are only 3 areas in which there should be Government oversight or regulation.
1) Safety, it is good to have agencies like the FDA, and other product safety organizations to ensure the products being offered are safe.
2) Monopolies: As with the steel, oil, and phone industries it is not good to have monopolies. It is never wise to put all your eggs in one basket.
3) Price fixing: The FTC is right in making sure that companies are not working together to artificially inflate the prices.
In California, one of the most regulated states in the nation, companies are leaving because of the cost of all the paperwork, and the time it requires. For example. It can take up to a year or more, just to get the necessary approval to build one building. How is this good?
FYI: Clinton cut the federal government, only by reducing the size of the Military, all other agencies actually grew in size under him.
In my state, 3 companies cover over 70% of the insured populace. Smaller companies have gone (or been driven) out of business. Is that fair competition? And if those 3 companies were suddenly allowed to cover people in other states as well, who's to say that they wouldn't do all in their power to be the biggest hogs in the national trough as well?
//It is never wise to put all your eggs in one basket.// So why is good for us to allow a monopoly on health insurance?
Rockefeller knew what "pure capitalism" was.
Aster knew what "pure capitalism was.
Ford knew what "pure capitalism was.
Firestone knew what "pure capitalism was.
Carnegie knew what "pure capitalism was.
They all practiced it... until they were rich islands in a sea of pain and squalor, and the government stepped in and put a stop to the destruction of "pure capitalism."
Exactly wrong.
the government stepped in and put a stop to the destruction of "pure capitalism."
Instead Rockefeller and JP Morgan, for instance, got themselves a little thing called the Federal reserve.
A cartel of banks that has controlled our currency since 1913. They have reduced the dollar's purchasing power by 95%
That's a lot of stolen wealth, from the entire country, and from most of the world.
Is your soft spot not yet healed?
Rockefeller knew what "pure capitalism" was.
Aster knew what "pure capitalism was.
Ford knew what "pure capitalism was.
Firestone knew what "pure capitalism was.
Carnegie knew what "pure capitalism was.''
If I'm not mistaken, didn't some or all of these men support replacing the federal government with a Hitler friendly fascist regime. Now that's the way to make a point. Use men who loved capitalism, more than they loved (hated) America.
I'm like some others in wondering why some citizens are working so hard to defend insurance institutions who are nothing but middle men. They provide no health care, nothing beneficial to our health yet suck tons of money from the health care economy annually leaving millions of people with out care or care so sparse it is almost worthless. I can't find a reasonable argument in their favor.
If you're happy with complete government control, move to China or Cuba.
Your arguments making any government intervention or oversight makes no sense to me when you compare it to a total take over of business. LIke I've said using your argument anyone who has a drink is an alcoholic and that to me is nuts. Maybe you need to go to China to see what you are actually arguing for.
That might work if they were capable of an open mind.
Government runs the regulations, regulating agencies, uses taxpayer funds to subsidize it's "option" while undercutting premiums, has no oversight, etc etc etc. That is competition? Its rigged. For instance the Post Office would collapse if it a) didn't get subsidies and b) didn't have a monopoly on first class mail. I know you want the public "option" but since the numbers we get are jiggered already, at least be honest and look at if all the self made rules favor the government and tell me how can it be called truly competition?
By the way, we can all thank Karl Marx for the term CAPITALISM. CAPITALISM is not the same as FREE ENTERPRISE.
It would work.
It's private industry that little or no oversight; and they're accountable only to their stockholders, not their customers or the government. But you go right ahead and believe Santa Claus is the CEO of Blue Cross. The rest of us know otherwise.
Bruce, one hears all the time how the other developed nations have not for profit health care systems but never do you hear of the financial problems they have and the drain on the overall economy. Which of these developed countries that have these systems have taxes that are anywhere near as "low" as ours? Which major nations with this system have announced recently they are in deep financial trouble? Which of these nations are responsible for even a tenth of the world's care discoveries in the last 20 years? Where are the majority of drugs actually manufactured in this world?
Jeannie, Your dramatics aside -again I say the government has little or no oversight and if you thought about it for a moment you'd understand what I'm talking about. For 8 years we had Leftists saying the US is a fascist state, we get an election and the only thing changed is the names at the trough and faster moves towards more control. Suddenly some on the Right wake up and realize this direction of control (still moving that way) is not what THEY want. Do the majority of them (any more than the Leftists) want to stop this gathering of power? No, they want it just to do what they think is right. Go right on believing the government is responsible and caring if you want, but your closing last 2 sentences applies far more to you than me.
We do have economic problems too, bubbles to the left of me, bubbles to the right, but before we cut the income tax rate, we had no problems with wild financial speculation bubbles. The money went elsewhere, and so did the prosperity.
You are talking of what individuals pay directly. Indirectly, they all pay far more in taxes at every level to include the VAT that Sen Pelosi is now mentioning. If one takes in all the varying taxes that are paid, it overwhelms what we pay.
Bubbles happen when businesses and people feel that the risks can be rewarding or when the actual risks of loss are minimal. Tax rates had nothing to do with that. Government policies encouraging loans to just about anyone if it was for housing was the major leavening of this latest crisis. Now that we have the new policy of "too big to fail" it sure won't be discouraging risk much either.
Jim,
No, if you understand what I'm saying-those other countries pay hugely through other taxes. They actually pay far more than we do because of it's a constant thing for them in every matter of life there. While it looks cheaper, it's far more costly and worst of all, the bigger ones are in major financial straits.
Very few of the medical discoveries in recent years have come from other lands. You all ridicule the profit motive but it's the biggest motivator there is and the most effective. Altruism is nice but on the scales, it doesn't measure up.
> have not for profit health care systems but never do you hear
> of the financial problems they have and the drain on the
> overall economy.
Are you kidding. That is all I used to hear growing up, the imminent
collapse of all the European countries. They could not keep it up,
well the reason you don't hear that anymore is no mystery .. except
maybe to you.
I see you are going to keep on with the myth that all these
countries are doing so badly. Well, one think you cannot deny is
that even if they go into recession, probably caused by us, they
will go into it less than we are now, and with healthier, happier
people.
I think the scales show altruism works just fine, if it is sensible,
just like capitalism, so a mixture is what I am for. Our country
has turned into facism 2.0, a kindler, friendlier face of totalitarianism.
That is not what the founders intended either.
The failure of the tax cuts are the economic bubbles all around us.
Any economic troubles are indeed something else.
With few exceptions Tim, economists credit tax cuts with growth in both revenue and GDP. Taxation takes from producers to either be transferred to other rent seekers or spent on various projects-some enumerated by the Constitution and many more simply vote buying plans. And that transfer comes after the "handling fees" of the bureaucracy get their slice. Few of those espousing higher taxes ever factor in what would have been generated if those taxes had been left in the hands of those who earned the money.
Lastly, you are looking solely at direct costs for medical plans, the foreign governments with those one payer plans get their money through widespread and heavy taxation-even worse than ours. Added together, they pay far more than we do.
You look at the comfort level of the middle class, subsidized as it at levels and it looks good but its not expanding. All those comfort programs cost money, energy, and intellectual capital that could go into actually growing their economies. But it's not, Europe is living off it's capital and though it looks good now-it can't and won't last.
I won't disagree that our country is drifting into statism-fascism you named it but that comes with increasing the power of the government. That drift hasn't really stopped for decades and there is no sign it's going to soon either. That soft totalitarianism, not the naked force of communism/fascism will come as government "equalizes" results rather than opportunity.
Source for this besides Fox Financial News or Newsmax?
http://indexmundi.com/map/?v=74 (CIA)
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9B2VUO00.htm
http://www.bls.gov/fls/intl_unemployment_rates_monthly.htm (US Bureau of Labor Statistics)
As you see, some EU nations have done fairly well but many have not. It is not concentrated among the newer members of the EU either.
Progressive taxes rewarded business investment, and maintained infrastructure. Both of these are crumbling due to wild financial speculation.
On health care, no one in these countries are going bankrupt. We are alone in that distinction. The cost is half, given our progressive income tax, we could do even better than they do.
None of the nations with national health care/one payer/what have you is in danger of going bankrupt like us? We are alone in that distinction? That is a broad statement in the face of the evidence of costs, please again enlighten me how we are the only ones in such financial problems?
Think of it this way, if an individual racks up what would be a high bill in health care, the taxes are not any higher than what they would normally pay. No one gets a bill, and no one has to go bankrupt. The government also uses regulation to cut costs all along the way.
Note what you say about tacking up a high health care bill. The government will ensure no one gets a bill. The government simply orders a price ceiling on the service (tough luck providers who then eat the real cost) and viola, its done. Considering how well that is working out with Medicare providers (many providers no longer accept it), how will that affect the quantity of overall care for everyone? None of this is addressed in current plans for ObamaCare, it is assumed that the system will pay for itself somehow when the much smaller version doesn't even come close now.
We have a wide range of prices for the same procedure. Almost all those other countries have private insurance for those who want it. Many on medicare do the same thing, having both. Some of those countries have all private insurance, but price regulated. The public option is a moot point (but no one listens to me).
Australia is a developed nation with a universal public health care system, and the Australian economy is in significantly better shape than that of the U.S.
I think you need to check your facts there. Austrailia has no such requirement for immigration. And although the U.S. has a more liberal immigration policy than a lot of other industrialized countries, we do not "take in anyone at any age."
It makes it very hard to take you seriously when you are just making stuff up. But seeing how making stuff up is in the Republican play book, I guess you may not know any better.
Devon before the obligatory blast at your Repub opponents about making things up, look at your own party. The so called job creation results of the spendathon are a case in point...only 30k created but over a million "saved". Right. How many tens of million per job did that take for the 30k, never mind how does anyone prove xjobs saved?
Take issue with what she wrote but you don't need to act like such comments are the propriety right of a single party.
I've seen more responsible property owners, though.
No doubt government and many of those corporate types are alike actually, just the government ones can keep on doing it and there is absolutely nothing we've been able to do about it so far.
Either you don't know what you're talking about and you're just making stuff up, or you're deliberately lying. Either way, your claim is totally and completely untrue.
Actually, the government has been accused of doing exactly that, with regard to its own "stimulus" spending in response to the Global Economic Downturn.
"Also Australia seems to be one of the exceptions rather than the rule with not having health care systems being a massive drain (so far) on the their economies."
I don't think that's the case, Charles. I don't think there's a rule that says universal public health care is a bad idea. In fact, having lived both with and without such a system, I can say I definitely prefer having it.
Excellent point, Bruce.
We could argue all day of the good and bad of such a system. I mean we both know where the other stands on the issue so its really moot between us. The thing is that many nations are having financial problems with it including France, Germany, Canada, and England.
Some obviously comes with the universal less than great times the world is going through. Others simply because costs go up and as more use that system, well mathematically problems will arise. Still others might be mismanagement but since our nation does so poorly managing it's Treasury now....
And the other things is that many nations may be having financial problems, but that doesn't mean that their universal public health care systems are the cause of those problems. Last time I checked, the U.S. was having a few financial problems of its own, despite not having such a system.
And there are also many nations (including Australia) that have universal public health care systems that are not having significant financial problems, particularly when compared to the U.S.
And to be honest, I figure one sure way to see the U.S.'s problems, financial and otherwise, get even worse would be to get rid of the limited publicly-funded health system currently in place.
Identify if you please nations with such systems that aren't paying both directly/indirectly through a myriad of other taxes/VATs at levels far in excess of the US tax rates and insurance transfers.
Since I didn't say national health care systems are the sole cause of any national financial problem, I don't understand your attempt to say I did. However, you might want to identify though some of the nations other than Oz that aren't having financial problems at least due in part to their national heath care systems. I noted several that are and all of them are ones the US supporters of ObamaCare wish to emulate.
Though I know the financial problems of Medicare are no joke Wil, I didn't mention getting rid of it. For better or worse, it is now locked into place and getting rid of it is something few politicians would attempt under any conditions.
There are many reasons the US is undergoing severe financial problems at this time chief among them a government which spends madly and tries to manage its economy rather than staying out of its way. A war, subsidies of both foreign nations and domestic industries plus ever increasing entitlement programs/debt financing all are also contributing to the mess. Adding more unfunded programs will not help much either.
Wow, we've found something to agree on!
It's not capitalism when a corporation buys politicians through large political campaign contributions; when top corporate executives, appointed to top government positions, change the rules and regulations to increase profits and cut out the competition; when bank deposits are guaranteed by the government (FDIC), which leads to banks making unwise, risky investments; when failed, bankrupt corporations are bailed out; when the banking elite is in complete control of our monopoly currency; etc.
COMPETITION IN A FREE MARKET! This is the core of true capitalism. Yet the majority of big business and the financial institutions that support them have subverted the principals of true capitalism and have turned our economic system into one that is more like corporate fascism.
Wow, more we can agree on...
But then you try to place all blame Republicans.
You're missing half the problem. Democrats receive millions and millions of dollars every year from corporate interests. Think that does not affect their decisions? Who's Obama's number 2 guy in the treasury? A former Goldman Sachs employee. And the #1 guy, Geithner, was also connected to Goldman.
Not to pick on Goldman (there's plenty of guilt elsewhere too) too much, here's a video series (about 10 minutes long) describing some of their atrocious moves. Republicans and Democrats (already bought and paid for, of course) are letting this happen all the time.
Our 'two parties' act like one party on many issues and this is one of them.
Yesterday the White House announced they were ordering corporations that received TARP money to slash the salaries of their top 25 executives by 90%. In addition any executive wishing to spend more than $25,000 on perks like using the company jet will have to get permission.
Now, this would not have been a problem is we let capitalism and free markets do their thing. These corporate crooks would have lost their jobs and our nation would have been spared hundreds of billions in debt. But no, Republicans and Democrats got together with a little bailout idea to rescue their campaign funders and threw away a bunch of money. In exchange, we have crooked companies still operating, and a lot more debt.
Government interfering in private business to dictate wages is unconstitutional and unacceptable, regardless of the bailouts.
It would be a better move to pass a resolution or law stating that starting today, no companies will ever be bailed out again, regardless of size. They would get a little more prudent with their money if they knew their was no more bailouts to fall back on.
In a free market, there are many factors that play into what a corperation will charge for a product. Yes because they make it, designed it, they have the right to charage as they see fit. Yet at the same time, we have the right not to pay for it, if we fill it is over priced.
So lets look at factors to costs; Labor and other materials, the cost of material drives the cost of a finished product, if you increase any cost, then the comapany has to increase their prices. In this, Unions without regulations have over priced labor, thus increasing the cost of a product.
Taxes, the more a company has to pay in taxes, the more they have to charge to cover those costs. If the government increases taxes, this does two things, it reduces wages, and increases cost of finished products.
Comsumers, a business has to judge the cost by what the consumer will pay, which is why companies use market surveys and calculations. If they over price a product, then they cut their own throats, yet they have to ballence out costs to price, if the two do mot match, then the comapny has to either go overseas where they can produce it at a cost the consumer will pay, or quit making the product.
Captitalism works and has worked from day one in this country. All because you Liberals refuse to look at facts, and support anti-American agendas, that does not make you right, it makes you wrong and self-destructive.
So what does that do to your "right not to pay for it"?
//Unions without regulations have over priced labor...// Oh... does that mean you'd accept a dollar an hour with no overtime, no vacation, and no ability to change your working conditions? Plus, the cost of labor hasn't gone up by hundreds of percentage points per year (although insurance costs have done so). So the standard "blame the worker" tack doesn't work here.
When taxes went from 79% in the 1930's, to 96% in the 1950's, the economy did not tank, and prices did not spike to recoup profits.
94%.
Typo.
No worries there, Devin. I can't even decipher his comment with all the misspellings! LOL
The destruction of WW2 made the US virtually the only industrialized nation to survive with its capacity untouched. We were the world's market place but that started changing by the mid 60s and pretty much ended in the early 70s. Then we had a tax reaction that hurt the economy as producers fled the country or slowed/stopped taxable activity. Don't forget stagflation which Devin mentions was arch regulationist Nixon's midwifery and congress's tax/spend fertilization.
Thay cannot even address the facts, but skirt them to make their points. Which is why they are always so easy to shoot down.
Exporting devastation and the fundamentals of our economy was not a Democratic idea, and virtually all of our big problems stem from that, and the subsequent takeover of our country by would-be dictators who have nowhere to go in American society but to ruin it so they can be like their dictator buddies in the 3rd world.
Clinton spent like crazy during the boom, then when warned from 1995 through 2000, he never responded to that, just kept spending ensuring the collapse. Come Bush, 9/11 and the crash happened 2 years before it was predicted, but did not go as bad as it should have because of Bush Jr.
Then under a struggling economy, mostly because Bush Jr. keep working too much with the Democrats, and the wars, it never got beyond struggling, but made some climbs. Then came the Democrats "Sub-prime Lending" time bomb (Clinton and the Democrats), and that was more than could be handled. And you stil want to ignore facts and repete boasting that your failed hero was so good. What did he do?
You made the comment that Clinton did a great job,m and I showed he did nothing. Did Bush do a great job, I never said he did, he did better,m yes, but he also made too many mistakes.
The problem is you don't know how to read.
''You made the comment that Clinton did a great job'' Really, where?? I simply said he left us with a ''SURPLUS''.
And when you said bu$h ''did better'', that my friend is self deception.
I'm sick and tired of conservatives disrespecting government workers -- at any level. Most of us have HUGE workloads that are constantly being increased due to tax cuts directed at people making far more than we do. We have oversight from other federal, state, and/or local agencies that require at least annual audits of our work (and all of whom are looking at ways to cut our funding even further). I'd like to see Blue Cross get as much done with so little staffing and funding. I'd also like to have government agencies have 30% of their funding allocated to administrative costs the way health insurers do.