Skip to main content

View Diary: this was offered as a comment (49 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Excellent post! Dodd-Frank is a great example... (11+ / 0-)

    ...with regard to the lip service we see playing out in D.C. as it concerns ineffectively addressing deep-rooted problems within our society that are now rearing their ugly heads. (Actually, I would argue that Dodd-Frank's made matters far worse.)

    As a result of many years of Dodd-Frank kabuki, what do we have? Greater income inequality. TBTF banks far more powerful now than they were even three or four years ago. Joblessness which I believe Krugman described quite well, just yesterday in: "The Big Shrug."

    So, now these same folks want to "address" the power of the military-industrial/intelligence state, too?

    Personally, I think it's the "definition of insanity," which is: "Repeating the same action and expecting a different result."

    It will take a generation to undo the damage Wall Street has done to Main Street, if that ever happens.

    As neoliberal economist Jeffrey Sachs recently noted: Our country is ruled by corporate gangs: Big Ag/Big Food, Big Energy, Wall Street, Big Pharma, and the Military Industrial/Intelligence Complex.

    THEY OWN OUR GOVERNMENT.

    If we're going to EFFECTIVELY solve anything, we better start with this last problem, first and foremost. Because relying upon our failed, two-party political system to solve these MASSIVE issues, and others such as properly addressing climate change, sure as hell is NOT going to solve a damn thing. It will only make matters worse.

    We've already learned this, BIGTIME. For anyone to posit otherwise is just pure, unadulterated, status quo bullsh*t.

       

    "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

    by bobswern on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 04:49:17 PM PDT

    •  For crying out loud bob, what does Dodd-Frank (0+ / 0-)
      As a result of many years of Dodd-Frank kabuki, what do we have? Greater income inequality.
      have to do with income inequality?

      Dodd-Frank merely re-regulated the banks.  Of course it did not immediately break them up (which is why you disparage it) but many of us wanted new regulations like higher capital requirements and a bank liquidation mechanism in that bill.

      "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

      by shrike on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 04:57:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  For you to even ask that question is laughable... (7+ / 0-)

        ...because even Elizabeth Warren recently noted we're still subsidizing Wall Street to the tune--EASILY--of $83 billion per year. I would argue, by the time one looks at corporate taxation and capital gains (being as low as it is), it's much more than that.

        Dodd-Frank is a joke. Some of the best kabuki, "evuh," but a sick joke played upon Main Street, nonetheless.

        Taxpayers are backstopping the derivatives industry more nowso than ever.

        Shrike, this is the part where you continue on with the propaganda and tell us how profitable it was for taxpayers to bailout Wall Street, and how much money we made on AIG and Maiden Lane, right?

        (Warren also discussed this, too, where she noted they're receiving, literally, scores of billions in special tax incentives, all at the expense of U.S. taxpayers, perhaps for as long as our children are alive.)

        Queue propaganda....
        (...and, it would be nice if you acknowledged your professional affiliations and bias before your continue on with your inherently deceptive posturing, so at least there would be some honesty here; and, this was publicly acknowledged by this Kossack, once before within the community, and that IS quite pertinent to the ethical decency of so-called "reasoned discourse" here, I might add.)

        "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

        by bobswern on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 05:06:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There are no direct subsidies at all. (0+ / 0-)

          Yes, they get lower PRIVATE bond rates from PRIVATE investors due to Bush's rush to TARP loans - an implied backstop.

          That $83 billion is fiction in terms of taxpayer funds.

          And yes, I did work in the financial consulting industry - never have denied it.

          "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

          by shrike on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 05:14:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Spoken like a pro: No "DIRECT" subsidies, at all.. (3+ / 0-)

            ...I rest my case.

            "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

            by bobswern on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 05:16:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Tax incentives which equal scores of billions... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              3goldens, lostinamerica, allenjo

              ...per year--money which could be going to support education, jobs, climate change initiatives--are doing, and have done, as much to CRIPPLE our society as anything (other than, perhaps, the tremendous costs for healthcare and support of our MIC and our needless wars over the past decade-plus) else in our society. And, that's about as BASIC as it gets.

              "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

              by bobswern on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 05:19:20 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Taxpayers don't contribute a dime of subsidy (0+ / 0-)

              money.  Not a dime.

              "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

              by shrike on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 05:20:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Then back up what you said with factual data. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                lostinamerica, allenjo

                I've been reading Neil Barofsky's book and I don't think you are at all accurate in what you're saying here.  In any case, you frequently just make flat statements, and you need to be aware that that's not good enough.  You could stop the time you waste going back and forth if you would just back up what you're saying with fact.  Your opinion in and of itself doesn't mean a thing without the data to back it up.  I'd think you wouldn't need to be told this.

                "A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more." - from the prophet Jeremiah

                by 3goldens on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 05:28:47 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  There are no direct subsidies. How can I cite (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  anna shane

                  something that does not exist?

                  "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

                  by shrike on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 06:11:44 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  There must be articles that source (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    allenjo

                    to what bobswern is talking about and that you are denying.  If you're too unwilling to do the research, that's a different matter.

                    "A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more." - from the prophet Jeremiah

                    by 3goldens on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 06:36:12 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It's nearly impossible to prove a negative (0+ / 0-)

                      If I say "dragons don't exist" and you say "dragons do exist," you're making the positive claim of the existence of dragons. The burden of proof is on you. Not me. It's not my job to prove your crazy theory is wrong.

                      It's very hard to prove a negative. If you have evidence to prove you're right, let's see it.

                      Another example. Let's say someone says UFOs are visiting Earth and brainwashing people to vote Republican and eat Wheaties. So I then say, "I don't believe that." Then the other person says, "Prove it! Prove to me that UFOs are not visiting earth and making people eat Wheaties." No. The other person made the claim. It's not my job to prove that a crazy theory is crazy.

                      "Stupid just can't keep its mouth shut." -- SweetAuntFanny's grandmother.

                      by Dbug on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 11:56:14 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Please explain: "Spoken like a pro" (0+ / 0-)

              almost sounds like an accusation of shilling. I'm sure that's not at all what you meant, so I thought I'd ask you to clarify.

              I'd like to start a new meme: "No means no" is a misnomer. It should be "Only 'Yes' means yes." Just because someone doesn't say "No" doesn't mean they've given consent. If she didn't say "Yes", there is no consent.

              by second gen on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 05:21:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  by the way - What does Dodd-Frank have to do (0+ / 0-)

          with income inequality?

          Why do you write such nonsense?

          "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

          by shrike on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 05:17:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I answered that, above. n/t (0+ / 0-)

            "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

            by bobswern on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 05:20:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No you didn't. You just repeated the subsidy (0+ / 0-)

              and tax incentive stuff - both of which have nothing to do with income inequality even if there were merit to such claims.

              "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

              by shrike on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 05:28:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site