Communism in America?

[shootfighter1]

The only industry I want to see the gov perform more oversight is banking.  There is reason to protect against excessive greed and complete destabilization of lending.
The gov should stay out of private industry unless laws are violated or monopolies occur.

[Dos Equis]

The systemic failure of our credit and financial institutions is not a garden variety bankruptcy.

You want to treat this situation as if it is a normal business failure that bankruptcy and market correction will fix in time.

Outside of rightwing economists, I can't find any credible economist who would agree with your prescription.
Nowhere in the article you posted does it state that the government will control all salaries of all executive of all publicly traded companies.  That's patently absurd.

Do the filing requirements of income tax 'control' your salary?  No.  It's a regulatory effort for accountability and transparency.  Same thing with the article you posted.

Yes this is a crisis, but no that doesn't mean we turn the system on its head and let the worst business in the history of the country (the federal government) take the reigns of private business.  They need to let these companies use the laws that are already on the books.  

What is a "rightwing economist"?  At least 200 economists oppose the reckless stimulus.  http://www.openmarket.org/2009/01/27/fiscal-reality-check/

I take it you're sticking to your contention that the government isn't talking about controlling the salaries of companies that don't receive bailout/stimulus money?  You're in denial.  I gave you the link.  Here is another excerpt from the link:

The new rules will cover all financial institutions, including those not now covered by any pay rules because they are not receiving federal bailout money. Officials say the rules could also be applied more broadly to publicly traded companies, which already report about some executive pay practices to the Securities and Exchange Commission.  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/us/politics/22regulate.html?_r=1

Frank said the same thing:  compensation restrictions would apply to all financial institutions and might be extended to include all U.S. companies.  http://www.financialweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090203/REG/902039977/1003/TOC&template=printart

[Decker]

The only industry I want to see the gov perform more oversight is banking.  There is reason to protect against excessive greed and complete destabilization of lending.
The gov should stay out of private industry unless laws are violated or monopolies occur.

Like some companies that are too big to fail?  If they failed, lending would be completely destablized.

[Deicide]

"Ten years ago / In 1972, a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire... The A-Team."......

Hahahah ur an idiot.

Great show...

[Deicide]

Like some companies that are too big to fail?  If they failed, lending would be completely destablized.

Lending? Why not work and save?

[Decker]

Yes this is a crisis, but no that doesn't mean we turn the system on its head and let the worst business in the history of the country (the federal government) take the reigns of private business.  They need to let these companies use the laws that are already on the books.  

The federal government performs as good as or superior to any profit motive company when it is not stocked with unqualified sycophants the way it was during the Bush years.  Social Security is much more efficient than any private insurance company in the country.  It's not even close.

It was private business that has put this country in an economic stranglehold.

What is a "rightwing economist"?  At least 200 economists oppose the reckless stimulus.  http://www.openmarket.org/2009/01/27/fiscal-reality-check/

That's terrific.  Maybe you can get them to call the governments of China, Russia, Iran, Great Britain, Spain, France, China, and Japan to tell them that they are doing it wrong with their respective bail out packages.

There is no short supply of rightwing crank economists.  Just look at the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute or any other sham think tank driven by plutocratic dollars.  They're paid to defend the corrupt financial elites.  Who pays them?  The corrupt financial elites.

Is their work peer reviewed by other academics?  No.  It's propaganda.  Of course there are misguided rightwing economists who toil in earnest.  I bear them no malice.  They're just misguided.

I take it you're sticking to your contention that the government isn't talking about controlling the salaries of companies that don't receive bailout/stimulus money?  You're in denial.  I gave you the link.  Here is another excerpt from the link:

The new rules will cover all financial institutions, including those not now covered by any pay rules because they are not receiving federal bailout money. Officials say the rules could also be applied more broadly to publicly traded companies, which already report about some executive pay practices to the Securities and Exchange Commission.   http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/us/politics/22regulate.html?_r=1

Frank said the same thing:  compensation restrictions would apply to all financial institutions and might be extended to include all U.S. companies.  http://www.financialweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090203/REG/902039977/1003/TOC&template=printart

First of all the rules do not exist.  Second of all, the major thrust of this legislative/regulatory  effort is reporting and oversight of executive pay and derivatives transactions.  The SEC, under Bush, did not do its job.  This effort will help out the SEC sort out the crooks so that our country is not destroyed by money hungry elites.

We want this regulation.  We want transparency and accountability.  Don't you?

There is nothing in the article that limits or controls a how much any corporate executive can earn.

Don't worry, they'll get by on the $300,000 average salary.  I know it's tough for the average Wall Street EE.  But they'll find a way to cope in the interest of the USA.

[Decker]

Lending? Why not work and save?

Most economic progress in this country is built on debt--i.e., credit.  Loans for new businesses, loans for expanding existing businesses, loans for education etc.


I love it when a plan comes together.

[Dos Equis]

The federal government performs as good as or superior to any profit motive company when it is not stocked with unqualified sycophants the way it was during the Bush years.  Social Security is much more efficient than any private insurance company in the country.  It's not even close.

It was private business that has put this country in an economic stranglehold.
That's terrific.  Maybe you can get them to call the governments of China, Russia, Iran, Great Britain, Spain, France, China, and Japan to tell them that they are doing it wrong with their respective bail out packages.

There is no short supply of rightwing crank economists.  Just look at the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute or any other sham think tank driven by plutocratic dollars.  They're paid to defend the corrupt financial elites.  Who pays them?  The corrupt financial elites.

Is their work peer reviewed by other academics?  No.  It's propaganda.  Of course there are misguided rightwing economists who toil in earnest.  I bear them no malice.  They're just misguided.
First of all the rules do not exist.  Second of all, the major thrust of this legislative/regulatory  effort is reporting and oversight of executive pay and derivatives transactions.  The SEC, under Bush, did not do its job.  This effort will help out the SEC sort out the crooks so that our country is not destroyed by money hungry elites.

We want this regulation.  We want transparency and accountability.  Don't you?

There is nothing in the article that limits or controls a how much any corporate executive can earn.

Don't worry, they'll get by on the $300,000 average salary.  I know it's tough for the average Wall Street EE.  But they'll find a way to cope in the interest of the USA.

The federal government has not been able to balance its budget or eliminate debt for decades.  They suck at the whole money management thing.  And these are the people you want running private businesses?  No thanks.

What are "rightwing crank economists"?  Are all 200 economists who oppose the stimulus "rightwing crank economists"? 

"We" do not want the president of the United States and/or certain members of Congress setting the salaries of private business, or trying to manage private business. 

How in the world are they going to limit or control how much any corporate executive can earn if they don't set specific salaries?  And what they're going to do is follow our socialist leader and pull a number out of their rear end.       

Everyone wants transparency and accountability when it comes to government.  That's not what this is about.  This is about an unprecedented federal government power grab.   

[Decker]

The federal government has not been able to balance its budget or eliminate debt for decades.  They suck at the whole money management thing.  And these are the people you want running private businesses?  No thanks.

The government was pretty good at handling budgets and showing budgetary integrity until Red Ink Reagan took the helm.  There was no budget deficit when Clinton left office and the debt was being paid down.

Then Bush happened.  I can see that you'd be wary of government's fiscal restraint after that massacre.

Is regulatory oversight the same thing as "running private businesses?"

What are "rightwing crank economists"?  Are all 200 economists who oppose the stimulus "rightwing crank economists"? 

No.  Some are pure propagandists and others are ideologues.

"We" do not want the president of the United States and/or certain members of Congress setting the salaries of private business, or trying to manage private business. 

Nobody is proposing that.

How in the world are they going to limit or control how much any corporate executive can earn if they don't set specific salaries?  And what they're going to do is follow our socialist leader and pull a number out of their rear end.

What you're saying is not proposed.  The closest thing to what you are stating is that CEO compensation be tied in some manner to a corporation's performance.  Do you disagree with that?  If so, why?

I'll tell you, good employment agreements already do that.  So what if it's codified in a regulatory scheme. 

I see no limit on earnings, do you?

I wish you'd be this concerned with the level of pay for blue collar workers or unionized workers.        

Everyone wants transparency and accountability when it comes to government.  That's not what this is about.  This is about an unprecedented federal government power grab. 

 The proposed rules are exactly about oversight and transparency.

Who is power grabbing? 

This country is long overdue for a more stringent redistribution of wealth to create a better country.  I don't think Obama has the balls that FDR had.

The class war is over.  The plutocrats that you defend so well have won hands down.  Look at wealth and income inequality in this country.  It makes the 1920s numbers look anemic.

It's time they share the wealth created by our country's labor force. 

Wall Street creates nothing.  They gamble on the wealth created by labor.

[ATHEIST]

On the Radio this morning, on the way to work, they were talking about how Barney Frank has this bill he's getting passed that allows Geithner to determine the salaries of "every person" in a company that has been bailed out.  Not just the execs, everyone.  It would give them the power to break Union contracts.

WTF?

I would want to know the fine print of the bill.  You're likely listening to conservative talk radio, which may be conflagarating the issue.  I'd need to see the language of the bill to exactly determine what it is authorizing.
 
In any case, off the top of my head, the bill does sound extreme, but I also know Barney Frank is an incredibly capable and smart rep.  He knows a ton.  I'm generally supportive of him. 
 
I would just bring up the point that technically, for many of these entities that we are buying up shares of, we are now owners of the company, and for companyies like AIG, in which we own over 70% of the company, it's no big deal to me to control some things like this.  For the banks, we technically own preferred shares, which generally may or may not come with some governance power in a corp, so its different. 
 
So what I'm saying is, I generally support Barney Frank, but I also do feel a bit uncomfortable if the bill is blanket bill enabling the government to set pay in all companies it has invested in.  For companies like AIG which we practically own outright, I dont feel entirely comfortable with the govt setting pay, but am open to it, particularly with how egregious the whole bonus scandal recently was.

[OzmO]

I would want to know the fine print of the bill.  You're likely listening to conservative talk radio, which may be conflagarating the issue.  I'd need to see the language of the bill to exactly determine what it is authorizing.
 
In any case, off the top of my head, the bill does sound extreme, but I also know Barney Frank is an incredibly capable and smart rep.  He knows a ton.  I'm generally supportive of him. 
 
I would just bring up the point that technically, for many of these entities that we are buying up shares of, we are now owners of the company, and for companyies like AIG, in which we own over 70% of the company, it's no big deal to me to control some things like this.  For the banks, we technically own preferred shares, which generally may or may not come with some governance power in a corp, so its different. 
 
So what I'm saying is, I generally support Barney Frank, but I also do feel a bit uncomfortable if the bill is blanket bill enabling the government to set pay in all companies it has invested in.  For companies like AIG which we practically own outright, I dont feel entirely comfortable with the govt setting pay, but am open to it, particularly with how egregious the whole bonus scandal recently was.

i was actually listening to Ron Owens on KGO out of San Francisco (mistaken deemed as one of the most liberal talk show host in america) and then this morning on a Sacramento radio station Armstrong and Getty who profess to be independent were talking about it.

[Dos Equis]

The government was pretty good at handling budgets and showing budgetary integrity until Red Ink Reagan took the helm.  There was no budget deficit when Clinton left office and the debt was being paid down.

Then Bush happened.  I can see that you'd be wary of government's fiscal restraint after that massacre.

Is regulatory oversight the same thing as "running private businesses?"
 No.  Some are pure propagandists and others are ideologues.
 Nobody is proposing that.
What you're saying is not proposed.  The closest thing to what you are stating is that CEO compensation be tied in some manner to a corporation's performance.  Do you disagree with that?  If so, why?

I'll tell you, good employment agreements already do that.  So what if it's codified in a regulatory scheme. 

I see no limit on earnings, do you?

I wish you'd be this concerned with the level of pay for blue collar workers or unionized workers.        
  The proposed rules are exactly about oversight and transparency.

Who is power grabbing? 

This country is long overdue for a more stringent redistribution of wealth to create a better country.  I don't think Obama has the balls that FDR had.

The class war is over.  The plutocrats that you defend so well have won hands down.  Look at wealth and income inequality in this country.  It makes the 1920s numbers look anemic.

It's time they share the wealth created by our country's labor force. 

Wall Street creates nothing.  They gamble on the wealth created by labor.

So Reagan is responsible for budget problems, but not the Democrat Congress?  And Clinton gets credit for making progress, but not the Republican Congress?  No partisan politics involved there. . . .

This isn't regulatory oversight.  It's socialism.  It's the president firing the CEO if a private company, telling employees of private companies what their salaries will be, and exerting unprecedented control over the private sector. 

What I'm saying is being proposed.  The "Cap Executive Officer Pay Act of 2009" will not just apply to companies receiving government welfare money.  http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s360/text   As the links and excerpts I provided show, they want to expand these limits to all financial institutions and all publicly traded companies. 

I absolutely oppose the government setting these salaries.  Companies determine their own salaries.  If it's a corporation the board of directors sets salaries.  It's not the role of the federal government to set these arbitrary limits.  This kind of stuff makes me want to cuss.     I can't believe our country is even debating this nonsense. 

[Decker]

So Reagan is responsible for budget problems, but not the Democrat Congress?  And Clinton gets credit for making progress, but not the Republican Congress?  No partisan politics involved there. . . .

Do you reference the Congress everytime you refer to a president?  This is a non-issue.  A bill does not become law unless the President signs it.  Not the Congress, the president.  Do you see what I'm sayin?

This isn't regulatory oversight.  It's socialism.  It's the president firing the CEO if a private company, telling employees of private companies what their salaries will be, and exerting unprecedented control over the private sector.

This country needs a good dose of redistribution of wealth.  If the US's 'donation' to these private companies is the only thing keeping them afloat/alive, and that is the case, then gov. has to make sure the company is not going to die again.  How's that done?  Micromanaging the company until it's on its feet again.

If the private company does not like it, it can decline the federal aid.  Right?

Seems to me like the private company is a voluntary party to this agreement.  Right?

What I'm saying is being proposed.  The "Cap Executive Officer Pay Act of 2009" will not just apply to companies receiving government welfare money.  http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s360/text   As the links and excerpts I provided show, they want to expand these limits to all financial institutions and all publicly traded companies.

  Nothing like you say is being proposed.  Here is what is being proposed:

To limit compensation to officers and directors of entities receiving emergency economic assistance from the Government.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s360/text

Does any word that in that sentence communicate a meaning that all private executives will be affected by the legislation?

I absolutely oppose the government setting these salaries.  Companies determine their own salaries.  If it's a corporation the board of directors sets salaries.  It's not the role of the federal government to set these arbitrary limits.  This kind of stuff makes me want to cuss.     I can't believe our country is even debating this nonsense. 

Well then, those companies accepting the bail out monies can give back the funds and maintain the integrity of paying crooked and incompetent executives all they want.

And as a bonus, they'll go out of business but you'll have your rage quelled.

[headhuntersix]

First off, the gov told some of these banks to take the money. Now they're telling them who can get paid what, after the fact. Then on top of it when some want to give the money back, Congress is telling them they can't yet. Barney Frank wants to regulate all executive pay, not just bail out pay.

[Decker]

First off, the gov told some of these banks to take the money. Now they're telling them who can get paid what, after the fact. Then on top of it when some want to give the money back, Congress is telling them they can't yet. Barney Frank wants to regulate all executive pay, not just bail out pay.

Is that what happened?  I could have sworn it happened in reverse.  That the crashed businesses asked the gov. for the money.

So Obama et al. forced the money on the executives, with no strings attached, and then commandeered the businesses as evidenced by the firing of the failed CEO.

How nefarious.  Why didn't I read about this in the newspaper?  There's that liberal media again.  These poor Wall Street Execs are doing there best and all the big government can do is force money on them and then fire them for cause. 

If Barney FRank wants to regulate all executive pay, I'm sure it will happen.  After all, who swings more power than a gay congressman.

I'm through being a smartass.  Thanks for your indulgence HH.

[George Whorewell]

Decker- all jokes aside; You trust the future of our economy with the federal government? The same federal government that got us into this mess? The same federal government that oversaw the Hurricane Katrina disaster? The same federal government that just dropped corruption charges against Ted Stevens? The same federal government that has two houses with more convicted criminals, alcoholics, degenerates and drug users than the Port Authority Bus terminal in Manhattan at 3am?

Is this the same federal government with the same banking regulation committee that repeatedly said AIG, Fannie and Freddie weren't in need of additional oversight despite evidence of the contrary for the past three years leading up to the current economic debacle? - Here's a two part question; Is this the same Federal government that passed the stimulus bill with the AIG bonuses and then pretended not to know about it? Is this the same federal government that wants America to triple its deficit and pay taxes up the ass for the next several generations while several Senators, Congressmen and cabinet appointees don't pay the taxes they owe themselves?

I would rather roll the dice with the private sector than have corrupt windbags like Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Schmuck Shummer and Charlie Rangel in the drivers seat any day of the week. 

[Slapper]

On the Radio this morning, on the way to work, they were talking about how Barney Frank has this bill he's getting passed that allows Geithner to determine the salaries of "every person" in a company that has been bailed out.  Not just the execs, everyone.  It would give them the power to break Union contracts.

WTF?

I think it's CEO pay being so out of sync with reality or that 1% of the population that mysteriously gets to keep 65% of all the riches that they are after. The other 99%, meaning you and I, we're already fucked. The media is using you and I to raise support for their master's efforts by making it sound as though it is going to affect you too. Guess what, it ain't. When you get a new job your salary is determined already (and so are any subsequent raises). The board of directors is not going to meet up and give you a 60 million raise because the company's stock price just went up 5 cents.

Get real.

[Decker]

Decker- all jokes aside; You trust the future of our economy with the federal government? The same federal government that got us into this mess? The same federal government that oversaw the Hurricane Katrina disaster? The same federal government that just dropped corruption charges against Ted Stevens? The same federal government that has two houses with more convicted criminals, alcoholics, degenerates and drug users than the Port Authority Bus terminal in Manhattan at 3am?

The Federal Government served the interests of the People in th e 1930s.  Why did that happen?  The government was stocked with capable, intelligent, qualified people.

The leaders then did not engage in two of the 'ideals' that republicans live for today:  1. the government is a means of personal wealth creation where the object of gov. contracts is to secure the contracts, get paid, and provide shitty, if any, service/product to the People.  2.  the government is a tool of personal power where untrained, unqualified sychophants are placed in gov. positions with no eye on his/her ability to do the tasks of the job.  The only qualification is allegiance to the president. 

If gov. fails, so what.  We got ours and gov. was too big anyways and gov. is the problem, anyways.  That's why deregulation is so important.  Regulations don't assure that fraud is not happening or that someone's gaming the system, regulations get in the way of the ingenuity of the private citizen.  There's big government for you.

I see Reagan and Bush all over these basic principles.  Don't you?

Is this the same federal government with the same banking regulation committee that repeatedly said AIG, Fannie and Freddie weren't in need of additional oversight despite evidence of the contrary for the past three years leading up to the current economic debacle? - Here's a two part question; Is this the same Federal government that passed the stimulus bill with the AIG bonuses and then pretended not to know about it? Is this the same federal government that wants America to triple its deficit and pay taxes up the ass for the next several generations while several Senators, Congressmen and cabinet appointees don't pay the taxes they owe themselves?

Freddie and Fannie did not cause the subprime meltdown.  The bailout of the banks could end up being wrong.  If Obama does not follow up with criminal investigations of ALL players on Wall Street, then he's made an error that is unforgivable.  These people committed crimes and should not prosper from their criminal behavior.

I would rather roll the dice with the private sector than have corrupt windbags like Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Schmuck Shummer and Charlie Rangel in the drivers seat any day of the week. 

It is private business corruption that has created this economic depression.

It was the Bush administration that had zero, nada, none, no regulatory oversight whatsoever.  For now, Tim Geithner was the chair of the NY fed reserve.  He also did nothing about regulating the fin. industry.  Then he lied about his role to congress.

Why do democrats seem to be republicans.  The democrats were sick of losing to the republicans.  why were they losing?  B/c under Reagan/Bush, the republicans got most of the private contributions.  Why?  Deregulation and low taxes...i.e., no oversight of big business.  Crime and fraud could prosper unchecked.  Clinton allied the dem. party with Wall Street instead of its historical base - blue collar america, unions etc.  Clinton made the dem. party more like the repub party.  And now we all pay for that.

Remember Clinton's words - the era of big government is over.

[Deicide]

The Federal Government served the interests of the People in th e 1930s.  Why did that happen?  The government was stocked with capable, intelligent, qualified people.

The leaders then did not engage in two of the 'ideals' that republicans live for today:  1. the government is a means of personal wealth creation where the object of gov. contracts is to secure the contracts, get paid, and provide shitty, if any, service/product to the People.  2.  the government is a tool of personal power where untrained, unqualified sychophants are placed in gov. positions with no eye on his/her ability to do the tasks of the job.  The only qualification is allegiance to the president. 

If gov. fails, so what.  We got ours and gov. was too big anyways and gov. is the problem, anyways.  That's why deregulation is so important.  Regulations don't assure that fraud is not happening or that someone's gaming the system, regulations get in the way of the ingenuity of the private citizen.  There's big government for you.

I see Reagan and Bush all over these basic principles.  Don't you?
Freddie and Fannie did not cause the subprime meltdown.  The bailout of the banks could end up being wrong.  If Obama does not follow up with criminal investigations of ALL players on Wall Street, then he's made an error that is unforgivable.  These people committed crimes and should not prosper from their criminal behavior.
 It is private business corruption that has created this economic depression.

It was the Bush administration that had zero, nada, none, no regulatory oversight whatsoever.  For now, Tim Geithner was the chair of the NY fed reserve.  He also did nothing about regulating the fin. industry.  Then he lied about his role to congress.

Why do democrats seem to be republicans.  The democrats were sick of losing to the republicans.  why were they losing?  B/c under Reagan/Bush, the republicans got most of the private contributions.  Why?  Deregulation and low taxes...i.e., no oversight of big business.  Crime and fraud could prosper unchecked.  Clinton allied the dem. party with Wall Street instead of its historical base - blue collar america, unions etc.  Clinton made the dem. party more like the repub party.  And now we all pay for that.

Remember Clinton's words - the era of big government is over.

If you had to categorise your politics, how would you describe yourself Decker?

[OzmO]

I think it's CEO pay being so out of sync with reality or that 1% of the population that mysteriously gets to keep 65% of all the riches that they are after. The other 99%, meaning you and I, we're already fucked. The media is using you and I to raise support for their master's efforts by making it sound as though it is going to affect you too. Guess what, it ain't. When you get a new job your salary is determined already (and so are any subsequent raises). The board of directors is not going to meet up and give you a 60 million raise because the company's stock price just went up 5 cents.

Get real.

Did you really tink i was speaking out against trimming exec salaries and bonuses on companies bailed out?   

I'm all for reeling in exec salaries especially with what's going on. 

I know first hand how corporate execs rape and screw their companies.  I dealt with the brunt of much of it at the end of last year.  I know how they ruthlessly cut jobs, squirm out of paying retirement, sue former employees, trim benefits etc..  all so they can have bigger bonuses at the end of the year. 

This is not what concerns me as they should all be brought down to earth.

The government setting wages for the average worker/manager is what i don't like.

[War-Horse]

The Federal Government served the interests of the People in th e 1930s.  Why did that happen?  The government was stocked with capable, intelligent, qualified people.

The leaders then did not engage in two of the 'ideals' that republicans live for today:  1. the government is a means of personal wealth creation where the object of gov. contracts is to secure the contracts, get paid, and provide shitty, if any, service/product to the People.  2.  the government is a tool of personal power where untrained, unqualified sychophants are placed in gov. positions with no eye on his/her ability to do the tasks of the job.  The only qualification is allegiance to the president. 

If gov. fails, so what.  We got ours and gov. was too big anyways and gov. is the problem, anyways.  That's why deregulation is so important.  Regulations don't assure that fraud is not happening or that someone's gaming the system, regulations get in the way of the ingenuity of the private citizen.  There's big government for you.

I see Reagan and Bush all over these basic principles.  Don't you?
Freddie and Fannie did not cause the subprime meltdown.  The bailout of the banks could end up being wrong.  If Obama does not follow up with criminal investigations of ALL players on Wall Street, then he's made an error that is unforgivable.  These people committed crimes and should not prosper from their criminal behavior.
 It is private business corruption that has created this economic depression.

It was the Bush administration that had zero, nada, none, no regulatory oversight whatsoever.  For now, Tim Geithner was the chair of the NY fed reserve.  He also did nothing about regulating the fin. industry.  Then he lied about his role to congress.

Why do democrats seem to be republicans.  The democrats were sick of losing to the republicans.  why were they losing?  B/c under Reagan/Bush, the republicans got most of the private contributions.  Why?  Deregulation and low taxes...i.e., no oversight of big business.  Crime and fraud could prosper unchecked.  Clinton allied the dem. party with Wall Street instead of its historical base - blue collar america, unions etc.  Clinton made the dem. party more like the repub party.  And now we all pay for that.

Remember Clinton's words - the era of big government is over.

Damn.  Great post.

[Decker]

Damn.  Great post.

Thanks and it's good to see you back WH.