Government Oversight

[DeletedUser3]

So, are we in need of government oversight, or government hands-off?

 

[DeletedUser34]

I think if we demanded the federal government have a balanced budget, this oversite screw ball stuff probably wouldn't happen. Oversite happens when you have money to play around freely with....why do you think so many corporations dislike slush funds so much. Maybe if the federal government realized they are flat out busted poor they would be a bit more careful with our money!!!

OMG Hell, did you just see that bird that flew over you?

 

[DeletedUser]

Well, seeing as how the banks and Wall Street were responsible for the massive recession, clearly we need more regulations or government oversight. Not to mention that they continue to cause problems (Trading loss by JP Morgan Chase)

 

[DeletedUser34]

ok, I am not referring to private sector oversight. I was referring to federal government oversight on itself. I mean there is more regulations on the private sector they know when you visit the bathroom. But the oversight department of the government is a joke, not just GSA, but the congress portion as well. Overspending on stupid programs in various states with money they don't have is beyond BOGUS. And, the way they give grants out in many cases is crazy. If a state doesn't spend ALL the money, they get none of the money in various cases.

 

[DeletedUser]

It has become so trendy to blame Bush that is seems nobody wants to look at what happened before him. You have Alan Greenspan "The Wizard" who worked with 5 presidents (both parties). It was the Clinton administration that appointed Robert Rubin as the Secretary of the Tresury (after 26 years with Goldman Sachs). Rubin brings in Timothy Geithner, and the outspoken Harvard boy Larry Summers. Time magazine puts them on the front cover as the commitee to save the world. Buried deep in the democracy was the the CFTC, chaired by Brooksley Born. She stumbles upon the 27 Trillion dollar dirvatives (black box) market that is going on with zero regulation. In 1993 Proctor and Gamble sue bankers trust for being scammed out of millions. Since it is unregulated, there is no way for the CFTC or anyone in government to look into it. Rubin finds out that Born is trying to get regulations into play. So he sicks Summers on her. Since her agency is appointed by the President, Rubin has no real power to legally do anything to stop her. They go to the FCC Chairman and The Wizard, for help. They go to congress and beat her silly in front of everyone to show why she needs to be put into check. Of course congress has no clue about anything, so they are just off the words of "the committee to save the world". So they ignore her warnings of the upcoming doom and possible econmic collapse. The hedge fund LTCM starts to collapse, as she warned. LTCM is the rock stars and a case study of arragence full of very liberal thinkers. Working with 15 of the biggest banks, they turn 5 billion into 1 trillon. Now there model is failing. Washington hears of it and panic. The government has 14 banks to buy up LTCM and stop the collapse. Now all the sudden more congressional hearing are called asking why no regulations. The "comittee to save the world" convinces them it was just a fluke. So no regulations were imposed. What they will do is put a freeze on Born and the CFTC, so she resigns. Banks have even more freedom to make even riskier investments. To a tune of 595 Triilion as it turns out. Almost 10 years to the day of her warnings and the freeze of CFTC, the collapse happens. The "let the market sort it out" of the Clinton administration had failed.

And the fact that you have to this day, people who try to apply systemic risk and moral hazard at the same time (when they are in direct conflict with each other) and you are just asking for more problems in the fufture.

I do not think the tea party or other oppenants of smaller government want no government or regulations. They want a smaller government that works. Not to continue spending more money to make it bigger so it continues to fail. There was big government in play back then and it failed. Making the government even bigger now would solve what? One part of government ignores the other. Making it bigger just makes the in-fighting bigger.

Adding insult to injury, Larry Summers and Tim Geithner are now Presidents Obama's top advisors. So what relly was learned. This goes way beyond a 15 second sound bite on the radical thinking of the Tea Party or the salvation of the "oh yes we can" current governments same liberal beliefs.

 

[DeletedUser]

I think if we demanded the federal government have a balanced budget, this oversite screw ball stuff probably wouldn't happen. Oversite happens when you have money to play around freely with....why do you think so many corporations dislike slush funds so much. Maybe if the federal government realized they are flat out busted poor they would be a bit more careful with our money!!!

You are proposing that reducing federal government spending will resolve all national problems caused by mega corporations? Please, enlighten me. I'd love to know how you worked that out.

Mega corporations protect their own interests. These interests focus on continuous short-medium term[SUP]*[/SUP] increase of revenue, inevitably by taking as much money as the possibly can from consumers and government, whatever the cost. These mega corporations have been allowed to achieve these interests by taking measures harmful to the nation and its people[SUP]^[/SUP]. We could increase regulation to outlaw such dangerous measures or... decrease government spending!!!111!!11!1eleven!!11!!!11!1!1!!!

* I do say short-medium term since the board really only care things go up whilst they're on it. Long term? Ha, someone else's problem.
^ See pic in original post for examples.

Stop confusing the issue. Whether or not you agree the government's decision to spend their way out of recession was a good one, or otherwise well implemented, the fact remains that the whole mess was created in the first place by a lack of regulation that republicans seem to so badly despise.

TL;DR version:

• Force, through legislation, corporations to act within the interests of the people: yes.
• Reduce government spending during a time of global economic stagnation: irrelevant, off-topic, not going to comment.

 

[DeletedUser34]

Diggo, I didn't read your post beyond the first sentence because I think you misunderstood me. I think that there is plenty of regulations on the private sector, but not enough people to carry it out. Who oversees the gov't? The gov't. Who oversees private industry? the Gov't. Get the government under control and two things will happen. They will have more abiltity to maintain their rules on corporations, AND lead by example. Why should a mega corp abide by the rules when the boss government doesn't?

 

[DeletedUser]

Diggo, I didn't read your post beyond the first sentence because I think you misunderstood me. I think that there is plenty of regulations on the private sector, but not enough people to carry it out. Who oversees the gov't? The gov't. Who oversees private industry? the Gov't. Get the government under control and two things will happen. They will have more abiltity to maintain their rules on corporations, AND lead by example. Why should a mega corp abide by the rules when the boss government doesn't?

So now you are proposing that:

• The government is understaffed, or otherwise underfunded, and hence unable to enforce existing regulation. (That'd be ironic...)
• The government lacks the legislative authority to properly enforce existing regulation, and hence requires more regulation to enforce the regulation.
• The government is corrupt, or otherwise unwilling, to enforce regulation?

Just removing the word 'spending' from the sentence "get the government spending under control" does not make your argument and more relevant, substantiated or reasonable. Neither does the "two wrongs make a right" approach you tagged on the end there. If "plenty of regulations" already exist, then they are clearly ineffective and hence more oversight is necessary, rather than your potshots directed at the government. Remember it is regulation itself (in combination with the constitution) that determines how regulation is enforced. The government is not a corporation, it does not play the game; it is entitled to take whatever action it deems necessary to moderate and protect the greater U.S. society, whether that so happen to fall inside or outside the framework set for corporations.

 

[DeletedUser34]

short and sweet today (I am shopping )
fixing this kind of thing would put A LOT of money back in the federal coffers.
I realize that not all the examples are applicable, most of them can be
Also, Get rid of pork....pork costs the nation A TON for BOGUS crap like this and this and this. I could keep going, but you get the idea. This isn't a "liberal" or a "conservative" issue, but a polarized issue of the whole that needs dealt with. Clean that up and there is our dept, as well as the available money for private sector regulation management AND the social issues that need dealt with. (IE: needles, medical, condoms, food, etc etc)

EDIT: for Diggo
Neglect and Inaction: An Analysis of Federal Banking Regulators’ Failure to Enforce Consumer Protections