Quantcast

Comments about ‘Debt must be reduced before economy can recover, ex-Citigroup exec says’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Nov. 9 2011 5:29 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
one old man
Ogden, UT

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.

MyChildrensKeeper
Taylorsville, UT

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.

JoeBlow
Miami Area, Fl

"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.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

One Old Man
do 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.

JoeBlow
Miami Area, Fl

"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"?

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

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.

DeltaFoxtrot
West Valley, UT

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.

Liberal Ted
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

JoeBlow
Miami Area, Fl

"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.

Rifleman
Salt Lake City, Utah

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 more firewater.

DeltaFoxtrot
West Valley, UT

@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 belongs.

JoeBlow
Miami Area, Fl

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.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments