Sources cautioned that the details, including the Treasury’s role, are still in flux.
And here’s the article.
WASHINGTON - The Obama administration is considering asking Congress to give the Treasury secretary unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy, according to an administration document.
Administration officials have said that the proposed authority would have allowed them to seize AIG last fall and wind down its operations at less cost to taxpayers.
The administration’s proposal contains two pieces. First, it would empower a government agency to take on the new role of systemic risk regulator with broad oversight of any and all financial firms whose failure could disrupt the broader economy. The Federal Reserve is widely considered to be the leading candidate for this assignment. But some critics warn that this could conflict with the Fed’s other responsibilities, particularly its control over monetary policy. The government also would assume the authority to seize such firms if they totter toward failure.
There is so much wrong with this that I don’t even know where to start, how about the fact that the government supposed to be in the business of “Risk regulating”.
The 90% tax is something the President has said recently that he didn’t fully support and in the wake of that it seems like it won’t go anywhere in the Senate.
This is current plan is something the administration supports and is asking for, but as you said, the details are still very much in flux.
So you make it seem like “Oh my god, they want to be able to do all of this stuff.” When in reality, of the two things in your title, only one are they considering and even that is still in the early stages. You need to ration out your outrage a bit!
I like the noises they’re making about regulating bonuses in banks and other businesses that aren’t even taking part in the bailouts. That’s sure to warm the cockles of any businessman’s heart.
every single american should be scared shitless of this happening.
if they can decide on a whim to take 90% of your income, what else can they do. naive people won’t think it will happen to them, until it does.
apparently now, the administration want to be able to overtake businesses upon their own discretion.
why aren’t people demonstrating in outrage?
anybody who thinks it is a good idea for government to be able to determine who to take over or not, doesn’t understand the complete ramifications of such an elixer.
as i’ve been preaching for years, give a mouse a cookie, it will want a glass of milk. when i said that the viewpoints of the administration made me fear for future of capitalism, this is exactly what i was talking about.
i hope the republicans are getting their shit together, we’re going to need to fight this thing next election.
So you make it seem like “Oh my god, they want to be able to do all of this stuff.” When in reality, of the two things in your title, only one are they considering and even that is still in the early stages. You need to ration out your outrage a bit!
Your attitude is exactly what allows these things to pass. I think yes, “OMG they want to do this stuff”. The simple fact that they would even mention such a thing is enough to cause outrage. The FACT that the 90% tax PASSED the house is particularly enraging in the light that it was almost certainly unconstitutional, which amounts to nothing less than a breaking of the oath of office.
Ration my outrage, not a chance. These are not “Off the wall suggestions” by some radical group inside one political party or another these are suggestions being proposed by the administration and being PASSED by one branch or another.
Seems to me people should be a bit more outraged, not less. But of course it’s far easier to simply let one thing after another fall under the umbrella of government control. Everyone got “Enraged” over the veterans health care issue and that was stopped, seems the same should be done here.
I’m not enraged. If firms like AIG are so tightly intertwined with banks that their failure can cause bank failures, then perhaps they should be regulated like a bank. Slippery slope, yadda yadda yadda…
as i’ve been preaching for years, give a mouse a cookie, it will want a glass of milk.
I have that book
**i hope the republicans are getting their shit together, we’re going to need to fight this thing next election. **
Sadly I don’t think the Republicans are any better. We have bread decades of reliance on the government into the populous. With 50%+ of the population dependent on the government or paying no taxes the politicians can’t afford to not have there “Bread and butter” supplying the raw material to feed to those dependents.
This is nothing more than a “Panic” reaction and an “Opportunity” to arrest and control the flow of goods and services into the government and to the dependents. Reps or Dems would do the same thing and have been doing the same thing for decades.
why stop at the banks, if the litmus test is having a negative impact on our economy. Throw in the airlines (need them), automotive (need cars), all technology (cool shit!), anything remotely linked to the military (we need to defend ourselves), all the pharmas (gotta stay healthy), energy companies (need the juice), etc. etc. etc.
AT what point does some respectable journalist on a national forum grow the stones to call Obama and his current administration a bunch of “Fucking Socialists” . Having someone like Lou Dobbs start down this road may wake some people up…
The FACT that the 90% tax PASSED the house is particularly enraging in the light that it was almost certainly unconstitutional, which amounts to nothing less than a breaking of the oath of office.
It passed the House, that is 1/3 of the way to becoming a law (or 1/4 of the way if you include oversight by the courts). It seems DOA in the Senate and Obama expressed his feelings against it as well.
Furthermore, it’s great how you say it was “almost certainly unconstitutional.” Are you a constitutional law scholar of some sort? It seems lot of people thought this would hold up to court oversight. I am not saying I liked it, but I am not running around screaming “Unconstitutional.”
Additionally, I’ve seen you make this charge before about “breaking the oath of office.” So does that mean for any law ever passed, that was later overturned by a court, and legislator who voted for that law should be removed from office?
Perhaps if all the “capitalists” at AIG had kept their shit together and not screwed up so badly, the Federal Government wouldn’t be sniffing around in their affairs…
When just a few idiots at the helm of a company like this can cost the American taxpayers $180 billion and counting – then I’m not going to cry a tear for them if the government wants more oversight over them. Car companies, airlines, etc, can’t do that kind of damage.
If firms like AIG are so tightly intertwined with banks that their failure can cause bank failures, then perhaps they should be regulated like a bank.
Maybe government shouldn’t be seizing control of banks either.
Using the same argument if GM is so entwined with the economy that it’s failure would cause a bank or two to fail maybe we should regulate GM like bank. Obviously the same applies to real estate. How about seizure of all the failed homes?
It would not have cost taxpayers $180 billion if congress would have refrained from giving them money. I’m not defending what happened at AIG, but congress bears the responsibility for the bailout. Without that, I would think that the only folks caring about bonuses would be AIG shareholders.
It passed the House, that is 1/3 of the way to becoming a law (or 1/4 of the way if you include oversight by the courts).
I think you’re missing the point. It PASSED the house. An idea that is questionably even contitutional PASSED the house. The idea that it flies in the face of many other principles coupled with that fact would lead one to believe it should never have even made it to being a bill. Hell it should never have been spoken of as an idea.
You’re saying it’s perfectly normal and acceptable that a bill be passed by the house as long as it doesn’t turn into law regardless of content.
It seems lot of people thought this would hold up to court oversight.
The only article I read that “Supported it” stated something to the affect that it "Could be crafted in such a way to be constitutional. IOW we could get around the constitution. I’d say that’s far from “Nope it’s perfectly constitutional no matter how you word it”
So does that mean for any law ever passed, that was later overturned by a court, and legislator who voted for that law should be removed from office?
Any law that was passed with the signers knowing it was unconstitutional, yes definitely. Of course as I pointed out in the post by MattinSF it’s near impossible to prove what one knows. He stated that Pelosi signed it “Knowing” it was unconstitutional. If that is the case she most definitely should be removed from office.
It is one thing to pass a law, mostly unchallenged, and entirely unknowing, then later have it challenged and fail. It is quite another to know you’re skirting the bounds and try to pass it anyway.
I think you’re missing the point. It PASSED the house.
It’s called the “People’s House” or the “People’s Body” for a reason. It passed the House and there was a huge degree of public support for it. Again, I don’t like it, but am not overwhelming shocked or upset about it. Check and balances worked out just fine, the system works!
Do you need see the flaw with your title? It would be like me posting about Bush “Breaking into the Watergate, now a war in Iraq.” Both of those things would be considered controversial, but only one was an idea of his. Not sure why you have linked these two things together in your title to this thread other than to stir outrage instead of debate.
As others have said, if you don’t like this proposal, then is it safe to assume you are perfectly fine with another AIG-type situation developing?
It would be like me posting about Bush “Breaking into the Watergate, now a war in Iraq.” Both of those things would be considered controversial, but only one was an idea of his.
I think you’re going on the impression that I’m somehow trying to link this to Obama or even some party, I’m not. These two issues are CLEARLY linked and anchored in a crumbling of the foundations of principle surrounding the free markets, freedom and individuality. This is not a problem linked to Obama or any other individual this is a societal issue that is clearly illustrated by your lack of concern on the issue.
Maybe the system did work, but it should bother everyone that such policies are even being put in motion. Would it not bother you if it passed the house that we should start rounding up small children and executing them or would you simply sit back and say “Hey the system worked”.
Do you need see the flaw with your title?
And no I do not. I believe you’re misinterpreting the intent.
As others have said, if you don’t like this proposal, then is it safe to assume you are perfectly fine with another AIG-type situation developing?
To say there is a “Cause and effect” relationship and to say that this is the only solutions seems pretty narrow sighted to me. Do I want to see another “AIG” fiasco again, certainly not. Can I see any number of ways to prevent it other than government seizure, yep.
“I’m not enraged. If firms like AIG are so tightly intertwined with banks that their failure can cause bank failures, then perhaps they should be regulated like a bank. Slippery slope, yadda yadda yadda…”
If you really understand that it’s a slippery slope, and if you see what’s at the bottom of it, then you should also recognize that instead of continuing to plunge headlong down that slope we should be clawing like hell to try to climb back up it.
Perhaps if all the “capitalists” at AIG had kept their shit together and not screwed up so badly, the Federal Government wouldn’t be sniffing around in their affairs.
Perhaps if all the “Stateist” in the government had kept their shit together and not screwed up so badly, AIG would not have had the opportunity to screw up so badly.
Perhaps if all the “Stateist” in the government had kept their shit together and not screwed up so badly by giving AIG 180 billion dollars, AIG would not have had the opportunity to screw up so badly.
Perhaps if all the government had done it’s job AIG’s screw ups would have been exposed long before it became a crisis.
Come on, even I am going to call you on this. Post 1929 there was a tightening of the regulations surrounding the markets, over time at the behest of the wall street and city of london (and others of course) free marketeers these regulations were relaxed as everyone felt that they were constraining the markets ability to work freely.
We now have the results world wide of a systematic deregulation of financial markets where almost anyone was free to behave as they saw fit with no thought to the consequences. So I suppose given you don’t think that the government should have the controlling interest in the banks and any other entities they feel might impact the economy (and I agree with this to some extent) where do you draw the line at a reasonable level of oversight and regulation?
What level of government regulation and oversight would have prevented this from occuring?
