Dems Target Private Retirement Accounts

ziggy wrote:

I'll grant you that LBJ privatized Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae but, to my knowledge, they are the only corporations chartered as Government Sponsored Enterprises. The tacit understanding is that the taxpayers ultimately back them up which sure looks legit to me.

What specific tacit understanding?

The "tacit understanding" is that a whole big bunch of corporations are being backed up by the taxpayers, i.e.- AIG and other financial service companies, and now probably GM and maybe other automakers.

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out a trait you and Aaron share. When you decide to shovel the shit, you really get to work on it.

Ignoring the problems in using Wikipekia as a source, how many corporations are chartered by the U.S. Congress?
http://www.fanniemae.com/aboutfm/charter.jhtml?p=About+Fannie+Mae

No, sherm, the point is to find out what caused the collapse. Much of the evidence points to shenanigans inside Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I may have leaned on your side too hard. The failure to reign in Fannie Mae was a failure by the majority republicans in the Congress and the Bush administration. The continuing problem lies with Dodd, Franks, and the democrats.

Well then what specifically would you have them do now?

I dont mean what should they do to punish someone or place blame.

I mean what should they do to fix the problem?

Get the government out of it Sherm. They can't fix it, they're only making things worse.

They need to allow housing to correct itself, allow the big 3 to reap what they've sown and stay out of the private sector, including 401(k) and IRA's.

But that's not going to happen and we all know it and this will drag on for years, just as the depression did as a result of FDR's interventions.

Well I have seen estimates that if the big 3 go down it will mean 3 million jobs.

Is that acceptable to you?

Is maintaining ideological purity more important than the well-being of 3 million families?

sodbuster wrote:Well then what specifically would you have them do now?

I dont mean what should they do to punish someone or place blame.

I mean what should they do to fix the problem?

If the crooks and swindlers who instigated this crisis are not held accountable, what is to prevent them from doing it again? What deterent will their be to prevent a new crop of criminals from more fraud, more deceit, more swindling?

btw....I have already posted what I think should be done. You just chose to ignore it.

If you buy a car you can't afford the payments, I'm not going to stop you from losing it. If you open a business and don't make it, I'm not going to rescue you. Why should the big 3 be any different?

The thing is, the automotive industry is not in trouble in this country. As it has been pointed out over and over again, Toyota, Hyundai, Honda, KIA and others are thriving in America, making cars and making a profit.

The big 3 are in trouble because they have made bad business decisions and because they've tied themselves to costly labor contracts, which is the main reason all 3 are losing money and in danger of failing.

If the employees don't want the companies to fail, then need to have their union step in, renegotiate their contracts and eliminate the waste like that in the article Jimmy referenced yesterday where employees make $30+ per hour to do crossword puzzles.

If they are unwilling to do that, then yes, it is acceptable to me that they fail and those autoworkers lose their jobs.

I have no problem with that at all.

sodbuster wrote:Well I have seen estimates that if the big 3 go down it will mean 3 million jobs.

Is that acceptable to you?

Is maintaining ideological purity more important than the well-being of 3 million families?

Are those estimated three million families more important to you than the three generations of Americans who will be lugging this albatross around their necks? Are they more important than the rest of their countrymen who will be forced to endure the burden placed upon them for generations to come?

Privatize the GSEs, perform the criminal investigations, and jail the perps. In order to fix this we have to understand it. I have seen no evidence that any reform is imminent.

Well Steph these are difficult times and call for difficult decisions.

This situation with trouble in the auto industry is not entirely unprecedented.

As I recall, Chrysler had to be bailed out before. 25 or 30 years ago so you might be too young to remember.

The same objections were raised then.

But the decision was made to bail them out.

And the result was they turned the company around and repaid all the money in a few years.

WITH INTEREST as I recall.

sodbuster wrote:Well Steph these are difficult times and call for difficult decisions.

This situation with trouble in the auto industry is not entirely unprecedented.

As I recall, Chrysler had to be bailed out before. 25 or 30 years ago so you might be too young to remember.

The same objections were raised then.

But the decision was made to bail them out.

And the result was they turned the company around and repaid all the money in a few years.

WITH INTEREST as I recall.

They turned the company around?

Really?

Then why are they in the worst shape of the 3 right now?

Seems to me if they had turned the company around as you suggest, they wouldn't be in the boat they are in, would they.

And it's also worth noting that Chrysler's financial woes preceed the current economic downturn and is not a result of current conditions.

Yes they turned the company around.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/economy/a/chryslerBailout.htm

"In 1983, Chrysler paid off the loans that had been guaranteed by US taxpayers. The Treasury was also $350 million richer."

So they turned it around.

And then proceeded to run it into the ground again.

Well no use chewing this piece of gristle any longer.

I believe the gvt. should try to save good jobs if possible.

I had a good job. Should they have saved it along with the 16 people that worked for me?

So should the government have saved my job Sherman? I'm waiting?

And if not, why?

Or is only for companies like Ford, GM and Chrysler that employee 243,000 people in the United States?

I'd have to believe that sherm perceives we're ganging up on him. I keep thinking we need a reserve democrat or two just to take the pressure off sherm.

I just want him to answer my one question and then I'll leave him alone.

For a little while, at least.

Jim Manzi puts it in perspective: what will happen if GM goes bankrupt? They'll restructure their debt and renegotiate all their labor agreements. Bingo. They save themselves. Too, Henry Payne says that the Big Three add $1,500 per unit due to their labor agreements. That's a heavy load for vehicles that are, arguably, less stout than their Japanese counterparts.

The bailout of Wall Street bankers is egregious enough. In that one, we're bailing out our entire financial system and saving ourselves (theoretically). Saving automakers is one very narrow piece of the economy and creates the impression that the government is one big ol' honeypot inviting anybody who's ever heard a cross word.

sodbuster wrote:Well then what specifically would you have them do now?

I dont mean what should they do to punish someone or place blame.

I mean what should they do to fix the problem?

You treat them the same as you did "drug dealers" that you didn't like, Shermmy.

You arrest them, convict them and throw their ass in prison. Then you consficate all their money and property acquired through their illegal activity and use said to pay retribution to those victims who suffered harm via their illegal activity.

That is the first thing you do to begin fixing the problem, Shermmy.



.

You arrest them, convict them ................................

But like I told Aaron over on anther thread, first you have to show that there was a law that was broken ...............................

If a former state trooper such as Sherman or a friend of a former trooper such as Frank got caught coming down 77 running 95, they've broken the law but neither is going to pay the ticket, if it's even written.

Some people are immune to the law depending on circumstance and you know it Frank. That is often the case, as it is on the other thread, when you ask your stupid "Why weren't they charged" question as some sort of proof that no law has been broken.

The most recent speding ticket I got- and it was from a WV State Police Officer- I paid a fine. I forget just how much, but the fine and costs were about $100, as I recall.

I've had 8 or 10 speeding tickets over the years. Your imaginary supposition of my immunity is totally misguided.

No it's not. Sherman, as a former state trooper could easily get a ticket fixed, especially one given by a state trooper. For you to imply otherwise is ignorance on your part.

If you indeed paid it as you claim, it was because you choose to, plain and simple.

Aaron wrote:If a former state trooper such as Sherman or a friend of a former trooper such as Frank got caught coming down 77 running 95, they've broken the law but neither is going to pay the ticket, if it's even written.

Aaron wrote:No it's not. Sherman, as a former state trooper could easily get a ticket fixed, especially one given by a state trooper. For you to imply otherwise is ignorance on your part.

If you indeed paid it as you claim, it was because you choose to, plain and simple.

So what is wrong with being responsible for my own traffic tickets? I figure that I will likely be a better driver if I have to "pay my own way" for my excesses. And so I do. And I don't give a damn about what you think about it.

You obvioulsy do not know what friendship is. Sherm is my friend- a good enough friend that I would not impose on him to "fix" my piddly assed traffic ticket- even if he could, or even if he would.

But I do know that officers do refuse to honor other officer's requests to "fix" traffic tickets. To have a ticket "fixed" does cost an officer something- a kind of "personal capital"- and which is diminished each time it is used. One can only go to the well so many times before it is empty. So an officer is obvioucly not going to fix every damn traffic ticket he or she is asked to. Does it happen? Sure. But not nearly as often nor as successfully as your misguided sense of what a "friend" is would suggest.