Kucinich has gone insane

[permabear]

[quote=SD Realtor]I don’t want to bang on health care. I guess I am just kind of awed by the reach of the govt. When does it stop and where does it end?[/quote]

I stopped worry about the reach of government once I learned that our attack… er, defense… budget is bigger than the rest of the world’s combined.

We send troops overseas against the will of our Constitution by naming our invasions “missions” rather than wars, enabling us to sidestep our checks and balances. Then we use our wonderful Executive branch dictatorship to strongarm other countries into undermining key peace treaties and environmental regulations, so our corporations can profit at the world’s expense.

But you’re right, those pesky social programs that help people are the big problem. As long as we focus on killing them, it’s ok.

[CA renter]

[quote=SD Realtor]CAR how the heck are we the decision makers in any of this?

Does the govt give you a say? Did you get a vote for GM? Did you even know about other countries the govt helps? Do you even have a clue what orgs the fed or treasury has helped?

Did you have a say in the vote where the GOVT decided to bailout all these rich aholes because the GOVT told us the alternative would be a catastrophic collapse?

Yes I agree with your sarcasm about how well private industry ran things. So the govt didnt have clue what was happening? Or what the outcome would be?

Please tell me how I will be a decision maker as the govt continues to provide more regulation and increases their reach.[/quote]

Firstly, I’m much more bothered by the bank bailouts than by anything that happened with GM. At least they do something productive.

But you know as well as I do that the reason we were pressured into the bank bailouts was/is because they control the govt…we don’t have any say, as was made perfectly obvious when the bailouts started in earnest.

This is something I would change, (and I believe Dennis Kucinich would agree as well). 😉 IMHO, a proper governmental structure would ensure a maximum level of transparency and accountability. We certainly don’t have that now, but I think more people are finally waking up to the problems. The only issue with getting the message out is that the forces who wish to stay in power are trying to get their own messages out — and they have more firepower, obviously.

We need to do away with the two-party system, IMHO. Personally I prefer a “no-party” system, where we vote for individuals instead of parties. We also need to curb the lobbying industry and make their actions much more transparent.

[CA renter]

[quote=SD Realtor]CAR how the heck are we the decision makers in any of this?

Does the govt give you a say? Did you get a vote for GM? Did you even know about other countries the govt helps? Do you even have a clue what orgs the fed or treasury has helped?

Did you have a say in the vote where the GOVT decided to bailout all these rich aholes because the GOVT told us the alternative would be a catastrophic collapse?

Yes I agree with your sarcasm about how well private industry ran things. So the govt didnt have clue what was happening? Or what the outcome would be?

Please tell me how I will be a decision maker as the govt continues to provide more regulation and increases their reach.[/quote]

Firstly, I’m much more bothered by the bank bailouts than by anything that happened with GM. At least they do something productive.

But you know as well as I do that the reason we were pressured into the bank bailouts was/is because they control the govt…we don’t have any say, as was made perfectly obvious when the bailouts started in earnest.

This is something I would change, (and I believe Dennis Kucinich would agree as well). 😉 IMHO, a proper governmental structure would ensure a maximum level of transparency and accountability. We certainly don’t have that now, but I think more people are finally waking up to the problems. The only issue with getting the message out is that the forces who wish to stay in power are trying to get their own messages out — and they have more firepower, obviously.

We need to do away with the two-party system, IMHO. Personally I prefer a “no-party” system, where we vote for individuals instead of parties. We also need to curb the lobbying industry and make their actions much more transparent.

[CA renter]

[quote=SD Realtor]CAR how the heck are we the decision makers in any of this?

Does the govt give you a say? Did you get a vote for GM? Did you even know about other countries the govt helps? Do you even have a clue what orgs the fed or treasury has helped?

Did you have a say in the vote where the GOVT decided to bailout all these rich aholes because the GOVT told us the alternative would be a catastrophic collapse?

Yes I agree with your sarcasm about how well private industry ran things. So the govt didnt have clue what was happening? Or what the outcome would be?

Please tell me how I will be a decision maker as the govt continues to provide more regulation and increases their reach.[/quote]

Firstly, I’m much more bothered by the bank bailouts than by anything that happened with GM. At least they do something productive.

But you know as well as I do that the reason we were pressured into the bank bailouts was/is because they control the govt…we don’t have any say, as was made perfectly obvious when the bailouts started in earnest.

This is something I would change, (and I believe Dennis Kucinich would agree as well). 😉 IMHO, a proper governmental structure would ensure a maximum level of transparency and accountability. We certainly don’t have that now, but I think more people are finally waking up to the problems. The only issue with getting the message out is that the forces who wish to stay in power are trying to get their own messages out — and they have more firepower, obviously.

We need to do away with the two-party system, IMHO. Personally I prefer a “no-party” system, where we vote for individuals instead of parties. We also need to curb the lobbying industry and make their actions much more transparent.

[CA renter]

[quote=SD Realtor]CAR how the heck are we the decision makers in any of this?

Does the govt give you a say? Did you get a vote for GM? Did you even know about other countries the govt helps? Do you even have a clue what orgs the fed or treasury has helped?

Did you have a say in the vote where the GOVT decided to bailout all these rich aholes because the GOVT told us the alternative would be a catastrophic collapse?

Yes I agree with your sarcasm about how well private industry ran things. So the govt didnt have clue what was happening? Or what the outcome would be?

Please tell me how I will be a decision maker as the govt continues to provide more regulation and increases their reach.[/quote]

Firstly, I’m much more bothered by the bank bailouts than by anything that happened with GM. At least they do something productive.

But you know as well as I do that the reason we were pressured into the bank bailouts was/is because they control the govt…we don’t have any say, as was made perfectly obvious when the bailouts started in earnest.

This is something I would change, (and I believe Dennis Kucinich would agree as well). 😉 IMHO, a proper governmental structure would ensure a maximum level of transparency and accountability. We certainly don’t have that now, but I think more people are finally waking up to the problems. The only issue with getting the message out is that the forces who wish to stay in power are trying to get their own messages out — and they have more firepower, obviously.

We need to do away with the two-party system, IMHO. Personally I prefer a “no-party” system, where we vote for individuals instead of parties. We also need to curb the lobbying industry and make their actions much more transparent.

[CA renter]

[quote=SD Realtor]CAR how the heck are we the decision makers in any of this?

Does the govt give you a say? Did you get a vote for GM? Did you even know about other countries the govt helps? Do you even have a clue what orgs the fed or treasury has helped?

Did you have a say in the vote where the GOVT decided to bailout all these rich aholes because the GOVT told us the alternative would be a catastrophic collapse?

Yes I agree with your sarcasm about how well private industry ran things. So the govt didnt have clue what was happening? Or what the outcome would be?

Please tell me how I will be a decision maker as the govt continues to provide more regulation and increases their reach.[/quote]

Firstly, I’m much more bothered by the bank bailouts than by anything that happened with GM. At least they do something productive.

But you know as well as I do that the reason we were pressured into the bank bailouts was/is because they control the govt…we don’t have any say, as was made perfectly obvious when the bailouts started in earnest.

This is something I would change, (and I believe Dennis Kucinich would agree as well). 😉 IMHO, a proper governmental structure would ensure a maximum level of transparency and accountability. We certainly don’t have that now, but I think more people are finally waking up to the problems. The only issue with getting the message out is that the forces who wish to stay in power are trying to get their own messages out — and they have more firepower, obviously.

We need to do away with the two-party system, IMHO. Personally I prefer a “no-party” system, where we vote for individuals instead of parties. We also need to curb the lobbying industry and make their actions much more transparent.

[SD Realtor]

I agree with your points about doing away with the two party system. The biggest problem is the lobbying industry and you pegged it. I am not sure how we can push that one out of the way.

We see the same thing through different eyes, which is that the real control lies well beyond the govt. That the people elect the govt officials who make laws that can benefit or hinder the freedoms of those same people. That at some point in time the govt lost control and (seemingly) is kind of a puppet to industry.

I find it ironic that when the so called “financial reform” went through Wall St was pretty happy. That big pharma will benefit quite well from the healthcare reform. That in the midst of what is supposed to be a “hostile to business” govt, we have witnessed what is close to one of the largest ever rallies on Wall St.

To me it just doesn’t pass the sniff test. I don’t fall into the everything is all right, the market is raging, the govt will take care of everything, and we will all live happily ever after.

I agree with you about transparency and accountability. Maybe you see it, but I do not.

[SD Realtor]

I agree with your points about doing away with the two party system. The biggest problem is the lobbying industry and you pegged it. I am not sure how we can push that one out of the way.

We see the same thing through different eyes, which is that the real control lies well beyond the govt. That the people elect the govt officials who make laws that can benefit or hinder the freedoms of those same people. That at some point in time the govt lost control and (seemingly) is kind of a puppet to industry.

I find it ironic that when the so called “financial reform” went through Wall St was pretty happy. That big pharma will benefit quite well from the healthcare reform. That in the midst of what is supposed to be a “hostile to business” govt, we have witnessed what is close to one of the largest ever rallies on Wall St.

To me it just doesn’t pass the sniff test. I don’t fall into the everything is all right, the market is raging, the govt will take care of everything, and we will all live happily ever after.

I agree with you about transparency and accountability. Maybe you see it, but I do not.

[SD Realtor]

I agree with your points about doing away with the two party system. The biggest problem is the lobbying industry and you pegged it. I am not sure how we can push that one out of the way.

We see the same thing through different eyes, which is that the real control lies well beyond the govt. That the people elect the govt officials who make laws that can benefit or hinder the freedoms of those same people. That at some point in time the govt lost control and (seemingly) is kind of a puppet to industry.

I find it ironic that when the so called “financial reform” went through Wall St was pretty happy. That big pharma will benefit quite well from the healthcare reform. That in the midst of what is supposed to be a “hostile to business” govt, we have witnessed what is close to one of the largest ever rallies on Wall St.

To me it just doesn’t pass the sniff test. I don’t fall into the everything is all right, the market is raging, the govt will take care of everything, and we will all live happily ever after.

I agree with you about transparency and accountability. Maybe you see it, but I do not.

[SD Realtor]

I agree with your points about doing away with the two party system. The biggest problem is the lobbying industry and you pegged it. I am not sure how we can push that one out of the way.

We see the same thing through different eyes, which is that the real control lies well beyond the govt. That the people elect the govt officials who make laws that can benefit or hinder the freedoms of those same people. That at some point in time the govt lost control and (seemingly) is kind of a puppet to industry.

I find it ironic that when the so called “financial reform” went through Wall St was pretty happy. That big pharma will benefit quite well from the healthcare reform. That in the midst of what is supposed to be a “hostile to business” govt, we have witnessed what is close to one of the largest ever rallies on Wall St.

To me it just doesn’t pass the sniff test. I don’t fall into the everything is all right, the market is raging, the govt will take care of everything, and we will all live happily ever after.

I agree with you about transparency and accountability. Maybe you see it, but I do not.

[SD Realtor]

I agree with your points about doing away with the two party system. The biggest problem is the lobbying industry and you pegged it. I am not sure how we can push that one out of the way.

We see the same thing through different eyes, which is that the real control lies well beyond the govt. That the people elect the govt officials who make laws that can benefit or hinder the freedoms of those same people. That at some point in time the govt lost control and (seemingly) is kind of a puppet to industry.

I find it ironic that when the so called “financial reform” went through Wall St was pretty happy. That big pharma will benefit quite well from the healthcare reform. That in the midst of what is supposed to be a “hostile to business” govt, we have witnessed what is close to one of the largest ever rallies on Wall St.

To me it just doesn’t pass the sniff test. I don’t fall into the everything is all right, the market is raging, the govt will take care of everything, and we will all live happily ever after.

I agree with you about transparency and accountability. Maybe you see it, but I do not.

[patb]

[quote=Eugene][quote=patb]

No it means ending Fractional reserve lending.

There is a difference.

All it is is changing the reserve asset ratio for non-federal banks to 1.[/quote]

If the reserve asset ratio is 1, then non-federal banks will be unable to lend out money, because they have to keep all deposits on hand, no?

Or maybe you mean that companies will only be allowed to lend out of their own capital. But then what’s to stop someone from creating a company that pools investor money and lends it out at interest, in essence, making an end run around the “lending against deposits” rule? People want to get interest on their money, the bill explicitly prohibits banks (“depository institutions”) from paying interest on deposits, even if they could, which they can’t because they have to keep 100% of deposits on hand, and there’s no profit in that. So they will organize these makeshift investor pools. How is that better (or different) from the existing fractional reserve lending system?[/quote]

The way i read it, is banks can lend out to the limit of deposits, they can’t multiply.

if a bank has $10 on deposit, they lend out $81 dollars.

under the kucinich plan, if a bank has $10 on deposit they lend out $10.

basically what happens is Bank margins decline.

They go from a spread of 3% on 9X deposits or 27,
down to 3%.

[patb]

[quote=Eugene][quote=patb]

No it means ending Fractional reserve lending.

There is a difference.

All it is is changing the reserve asset ratio for non-federal banks to 1.[/quote]

If the reserve asset ratio is 1, then non-federal banks will be unable to lend out money, because they have to keep all deposits on hand, no?

Or maybe you mean that companies will only be allowed to lend out of their own capital. But then what’s to stop someone from creating a company that pools investor money and lends it out at interest, in essence, making an end run around the “lending against deposits” rule? People want to get interest on their money, the bill explicitly prohibits banks (“depository institutions”) from paying interest on deposits, even if they could, which they can’t because they have to keep 100% of deposits on hand, and there’s no profit in that. So they will organize these makeshift investor pools. How is that better (or different) from the existing fractional reserve lending system?[/quote]

The way i read it, is banks can lend out to the limit of deposits, they can’t multiply.

if a bank has $10 on deposit, they lend out $81 dollars.

under the kucinich plan, if a bank has $10 on deposit they lend out $10.

basically what happens is Bank margins decline.

They go from a spread of 3% on 9X deposits or 27,
down to 3%.

[patb]

[quote=Eugene][quote=patb]

No it means ending Fractional reserve lending.

There is a difference.

All it is is changing the reserve asset ratio for non-federal banks to 1.[/quote]

If the reserve asset ratio is 1, then non-federal banks will be unable to lend out money, because they have to keep all deposits on hand, no?

Or maybe you mean that companies will only be allowed to lend out of their own capital. But then what’s to stop someone from creating a company that pools investor money and lends it out at interest, in essence, making an end run around the “lending against deposits” rule? People want to get interest on their money, the bill explicitly prohibits banks (“depository institutions”) from paying interest on deposits, even if they could, which they can’t because they have to keep 100% of deposits on hand, and there’s no profit in that. So they will organize these makeshift investor pools. How is that better (or different) from the existing fractional reserve lending system?[/quote]

The way i read it, is banks can lend out to the limit of deposits, they can’t multiply.

if a bank has $10 on deposit, they lend out $81 dollars.

under the kucinich plan, if a bank has $10 on deposit they lend out $10.

basically what happens is Bank margins decline.

They go from a spread of 3% on 9X deposits or 27,
down to 3%.

[patb]

[quote=Eugene][quote=patb]

No it means ending Fractional reserve lending.

There is a difference.

All it is is changing the reserve asset ratio for non-federal banks to 1.[/quote]

If the reserve asset ratio is 1, then non-federal banks will be unable to lend out money, because they have to keep all deposits on hand, no?

Or maybe you mean that companies will only be allowed to lend out of their own capital. But then what’s to stop someone from creating a company that pools investor money and lends it out at interest, in essence, making an end run around the “lending against deposits” rule? People want to get interest on their money, the bill explicitly prohibits banks (“depository institutions”) from paying interest on deposits, even if they could, which they can’t because they have to keep 100% of deposits on hand, and there’s no profit in that. So they will organize these makeshift investor pools. How is that better (or different) from the existing fractional reserve lending system?[/quote]

The way i read it, is banks can lend out to the limit of deposits, they can’t multiply.

if a bank has $10 on deposit, they lend out $81 dollars.

under the kucinich plan, if a bank has $10 on deposit they lend out $10.

basically what happens is Bank margins decline.

They go from a spread of 3% on 9X deposits or 27,
down to 3%.

[Author]

Posts