Many agencies were formed to oversee a problem that corporations created.
Granted, we can always find instances where they overstep their intended
purpose. So, why do we have them? Here is some reasoning on two of
them.FDA became necessary when corps which produce food and drugs
became more focused on profit than food and drug safety.EPA became
necessary when corps decided it was cheaper to pollute than to deal responsibly
with their waste.I have a solution which would enable us to rid
ourselves of many of these government oversight agencies.The problem
is accountability. That great buzzword that many love to throw around.Make PEOPLE in the corporation ACCOUNTABLE for the wrongdoings that may occur
and the need for govt oversight will diminish greatly.How?When a company knowingly pollutes a river, or brings a known unsafe car or
drug to market, or cuts corners on airline maintenance, someone, A PERSON,
should go to jail.If an employee know of such activity, they become
immune to prosecution by telling someone higher up than them. That person can
then tell someone above them.The highest level person who knew of
this offense and does nothing GOES_TO_JAIL.
@JoeBlow: If our government is unwilling or unable to take the necessary steps
to tackle this economic crisis then I contend that it has failed. Failed
government should be dissolved and replaced by a new system.It takes
only 34 States to convene a Constitutional Convention. We've currently got 26
States suing the Federal Govt over Obamacare. I don't imagine it would take much
effort to get 8 other states to join the cause.A Constitutional
Convention is what the Wall St. protesters should really be calling for... it's
time for a second American Revolution. Abolish this broken, corrupt, ineffective
system and put power back in the hands of the individual States where it
Re: JoeBlow | 6:42 a.m. Nov. 10, 2011 Giving the Federal Government
more revenue (taxes) is like give a drunk more booze. The liberal would only
spend it and come back wanting more. You can't cure an alcoholic by giving him
"Government spending just needs to go down, WAY down.A great place to
start would be returning the Defense Dept. to its pre 2001 budget."I very much agree with you but.......The problem, Delta is
that our congressmen cannot agree on virtually anything.Every cut is
going to be unpopular with someone in our congress.So, in your
recommendation about the military, obviously the GOP is adamantly opposed.Looking at SS and Medicare, many on both sides are adamantly opposed and
it is mostly Dems.(although looks like there can be compromise here)I have yet to see a proposal (even Paul Ryans) that includes enough spending
cuts to balance the budget.So, until that happens, we can either
raise taxes or increase deficits.Cutting is preferable, but does not
appear that either party is willing to make enough cuts.Where does
that leave us?We don't have leader in either party who want to solve
the problem. They just want to get re-elected.
When home values were going up 10-20% every year. And financial people were
telling us that it would continue forever. It didn't take long for me to have
serious doubts about that thought process. When a junk home was suddenly
"worth" $300,000 and you could buy it working part time making $7.25.
Obviously something was not correct.I just can't believe how many
suckers went for it. The government told banks to loosen up lending, they
de-regulated and allowed banks and lenders to give loans to anything that had a
heart beat. Which in turn increased demand and raised the prices of homes. I
wouldn't say the value went up. $150,000 for land and materials is still
$150,000 land and materials even if someone is willing to pay $300,000 for it.
At some point the market will correct itself no matter how much money is printed
and thrown at it. Let's just allow the market to finish correcting itself. Rip
the band aid off and get on to recovery.
Taxes do NOT need to go up. You don't grow an economy by raising taxes.
Government spending just needs to go down, WAY down. A great place
to start would be returning the Defense Dept. to its pre 2001 budget. That would
save some $400 billion. America should not be spending more on defense than
China, Russia, France, Germany and the UK combined.
JoeBlow,as I was saying in another thread, where I used up my 4 alloted
postings, there were other regulations in place that maintained many of the
protections afforded by Glass-Steagal. Maverick chose to find fault
with other portions of that regulation (Garn St. Germain) that were unrelated to
the Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act (23AB).Maverick
was slightly off when he said that Garn St. Germain has been widely held
responsible for the current mess. It has been held responsible for the S&L
crisis of the late 80s early 90s, but too much had elapsed between then and now
to hold it responsible for the 2007-2008 burst bubble.What Maverick
failed to acknowledge, and what I was pointing out, was DESPITE the repeal of
Glass-Steagal, 23AB should have prevented much of the damage done. however, the
fed FAILED to enforce the safeguards in 23AB which could have prevented, or at
least lessened the severity, of the current mess.To recap, some
parts of Garn St. Germain were disastrous, but the Fed FAILED to use the
protections in 23AB to prevent the mess, as did slick's DOJ.
"they merged, in clear violation of Glass-Steagal,"Sounds
like you thought Glass-Steagal was good legislation.I know I did.You must have been livid when the GOP Congressmen Graham and Leach
spearheaded the repeal of it with the GOP majority.So, you are mad
that "slick" ignored a law that the GOP was about to overturn
anyway?Don't you just hate it when people bring out "the rest
of the story"?
One Old Mando you know how Citigroup came to be?It used to be
Travelers Insurance and Citibank, but in the 1990s during slick willey's
administration, they merged, in clear violation of Glass-Steagal, which was
still in effect. What did slick's justice department do? nothing. What did
the OCC, who regulates national banks, do? nothing.BTW, Citigroup
paid back TARP, with interest.
"Government spending has to go down and taxes have to go up, he
said."Why is this concept so hard for some to see?IT IS TRUE, whether you like it or not.So, you can either bury you
head in the sand or deal with reality.Please ask your congressmen to
put America first.
Most all the financial failures were bank related but that doesn't mean they
didn't know what they were doing, and in most case our own government forced
banks in to the financial crisis, for a short while (5 years) it paid off.But someone forgot to tell the builders, mortgage company, contractors,
and realtors it was dangerous and illogical to pursue this course, coming down
ruined every one and home building was our only industry and it was a fake.This Citicorp exec is right though, reducing debt in the entire economy
of government and individual is critical. The financial industry
looks at debt as controllable and predictable economy for banking, while
freelance independence of incomes and wage control is unpredictable and
uncontrollable. Two elements of banking that can be measured and used to control
more debt and more peoples incomes. Wages are trillion dollars a day investment
capital, if they know how much their depositors will put in the bank(direct
deposits) they have "future" capital to spend. Banks have gained
control of wages and incomes and how it is used. Direct deposit and credit cards
should be considered dangerous and anti growth.
Wasn't Citigroup one of the organizations that dumped us into this mess?Now one of them is telling us what we need to do clean it up?Wow.