OT: 2008 Elections

[pk500]

Leebo is right. It's this kind of government excess that causes me to bristle at income taxes and government spending. Sift past the pro-Bush bullsh*t at the top and go to the numbered items:

http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/bg1840.cfm

More examples:

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pag ... allofshame

But WCO is right in that Federal spending has soared under Bush, the leader of the so-called fiscal conservatives. There is no dividing line anymore between parties when it comes to spending our tax dollars. Both the Democrats and GOP are like drunken sailors emptying their wallets on shore leave.

How the GOP continues to preach tax cuts while making no mention of decreased Federal spending is beyond me.

Take care,
PK

[RobVarak]

How the GOP continues to preach tax cuts while making no mention of decreased Federal spending is beyond me.

Take care,
PK

That's easy. Decreased federal spending is not a phrase that you want to use during an election. LOL

[Naples39]

Enron and like companies failed and the reaction was to increase controls and accountability of executives and corporations. I wish the government would apply those same principles to itself and really mean it.

I wouldn't get too excited about the reaction to Enron. Its legacy is a corporate control scheme that massively increases the cost to public corporations, but still doesn't prevent the outright fraud of Enron and other scandals any better than the previous regime.

I guess the difference for me with Enron is people chose whether or not to invest in Enron, and when it dies it's done. As for government waste we have no choice but to pay income tax year and after year.

I can't go as far as PK to say that income tax should be flat-out repealed, but the burden should be on the government to prove that they are wisely spending our money, rather than vice versa.

[JRod]

I guess the difference for me with Enron is people chose whether or not to invest in Enron, and when it dies it's done. As for government waste we have no choice but to pay income tax year and after year.

Except the responsibility ultimately comes down to the American people. It's nice to blame politicians for government waste but ultimately aren't the American people responsible for putting those politicians in office?

Someone doesn't become belligerent, misguided, corrupt, a pawn for any and all industries, when he takes the oath. He's probably been that way his entire life.

Ultimately, blame government all you want, but it's the American people responsible for the government they put elect.

[pk500]

Someone doesn't become belligerent, misguided, corrupt, a pawn for any and all industries, when he takes the oath. He's probably been that way his entire life.

Uh, not quite.

Let's make this analogy. A rich local guy who runs a $50 million corporation is like a 17-year-old kid with a tricked-out Honda Civic.

Now take that kid and put him in a Ferrari Enzo.

That's what happens when these rich regional dudes who are used to abusing million-dollar budgets go to Washington and realize they can abuse trillion-dollar budgets.

More money, more power, more abuse, more corruption. More danger.

Saying that politicians were just as corrupt before becoming "public servants" and that the power and money of Washington are irrelevant is like saying every spoiled athlete in the world would still be an arrogant dick who spends money on extravagant things even if he was a union pipefitter.

Take care,
PK

[matthewk]

Ultimately, blame government all you want, but it's the American people responsible for the government they put elect.

No matter who we vote for, the waste will continue. Just about everyone running for congress, the senate, or for president is bought and paid for by some group(s). Short of a full brown revolution or complete economic meltdown, I don't see the pattern of increasing goverment spending changing.

[wco81]

Interesting interview on the history of the financial instruments which has led to this financial crisis.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=89338743

Derivatives were deregulated at the start of this decade. Many of the exotic instruments at the center of this crisis were covered under this deregulation.

So as secondary markets for mortgage-backed securities developed, banking discipline by the originators of mortgages disappeared. Because they didn't have to worry about whether the borrower could repay the mortgage, due to the fact that there was more money to be made from the derivatives of those mortgages than the mortgages themselves.

One of the key pieces of legislation which deregulated these practices was signed in 2000 by Clinton. It was a 260-page amendment to an omnibus budget resolution, which was over ten thousand pages.

The amendment was drafted by Wall Street lawyers, to get Washington out of their industry. That amendment was introduced by former Senator Phil Gramm.

Gramm, since leaving office, has been working in industry. Currently he's a director of UBS, the Swiss bank which announced over $10 billion in writeoffs this week.

Gramm is also McCain's economic advisor...

[JRod]

Someone doesn't become belligerent, misguided, corrupt, a pawn for any and all industries, when he takes the oath. He's probably been that way his entire life.

Uh, not quite.

Let's make this analogy. A rich local guy who runs a $50 million corporation is like a 17-year-old kid with a tricked-out Honda Civic.

Now take that kid and put him in a Ferrari Enzo.

That's what happens when these rich regional dudes who are used to abusing million-dollar budgets go to Washington and realize they can abuse trillion-dollar budgets.

More money, more power, more abuse, more corruption. More danger.

Saying that politicians were just as corrupt before becoming "public servants" and that the power and money of Washington are irrelevant is like saying every spoiled athlete in the world would still be an arrogant dick who spends money on extravagant things even if he was a union pipefitter.

Take care,
PK

Your are wrong PK. Let me ask you have you ever been around elected officials or involved in party politics at any point in your life?

I have and I've seen people raise through the ranks, both good and bad. I've seen the attitudes from the good ones where they are as easily swayed as the bad ones. They tend to play by the rules even at the expense of furthering their career.

The bad ones were bad before they go into office. The red flags didn't show up because the power corrupted them. You don't get to be Senator or Congressman just by putting your name on a ballot. Usually there is year's of voting history on legislatures, city councils or even business practices. Very few people are unknown commodities when they are elected to a national seat.

The responsibility lies with the public. Power might corrupt but usually they were corruptible to begin with.

[pk500]

I'll agree to disagree, especially if we're talking about wasteful government spending opposed to true criminal corruption in government.

The more money to which you have access, the more you're going to waste. And there's more tax money floating around Washington than any state house.

It may be different in Colorado, but there have been people elected to Congress here in Central New York who had minimal political office experience but were well connected to political parties because they owned successful corporations or were prominent attorneys in the area.

But none of those corporations had anywhere near the free-flowing money as Washington, and you damn well know that kind of cash is intoxicating when you seemingly have a blank check to spend it. And there aren't nearly as many lobbyists roaming the halls of companies and legal offices in Central New York as there are in the halls of Congress.

Going to Washington is the big time, and people who go there and intend to "change the system" and "make a difference" can fall prey to the seductive power of the money of D.C. just like an athlete who says "I won't change" and "I'll stay true to my original friends" as he turns pro and then turns into a complete, ostentatious asshole.

There are exceptions, but to say that the power and money of Washington don't corrupt anyone who isn't already painted by the brush of scum is far-fetched, in my opinion.

Take care,
PK

[Leebo33]

Enron and like companies failed and the reaction was to increase controls and accountability of executives and corporations. I wish the government would apply those same principles to itself and really mean it.

I wouldn't get too excited about the reaction to Enron. Its legacy is a corporate control scheme that massively increases the cost to public corporations, but still doesn't prevent the outright fraud of Enron and other scandals any better than the previous regime.

I can only speak from my experience as a former auditor and CPA, but I am familiar with two instances where SOx would have most likely prevented the accounting irregularities and lack of control that occurred at the companies. There's no law that would eliminate fraud, but I'm a big fan of SOx. The reason why it massively increased the cost to public corporations was because many of them had little to no internal control to begin with or at least no documentation and accountability for the controls. Plus, nervous CFOs and CEOs overreacted and labeled every little control key to the financial statements which increased costs even further as it resulted in more documentation, testing, and audit fees. The legislation itself allows quite a bit of freedom in its application.

[JRod]

Ultimately, blame government all you want, but it's the American people responsible for the government they put elect.

No matter who we vote for, the waste will continue. Just about everyone running for congress, the senate, or for president is bought and paid for by some group(s). Short of a full brown revolution or complete economic meltdown, I don't see the pattern of increasing goverment spending changing.

Please...

First off, not all government spending is bad. If that's what you think then you are a part of the problem. An increase in spending isn't always a bad thing. In WW2 are spending increased exponentially, but by your logic that would be bad.

The burden of democracy always falls back on the people, it's your duty as a citizen, because that's all your can really control, to be educated and informed about government and current affairs.

It seems you just regurgitate whatever propaganda that suits you.

Big lobbyists, a sensational media, and parties are a problem in our democracy, that I'm not disputing. But your view is that well government is the problem, but there's nothing we can do about it, so let's just blame everything it does.

These problems aren't new. Read alexander de tocqueville's, Democracy in America. He wrote the book in the 1800s, and quite simply the problems they had back then are the same ones we see now.

Ultimately, government is ran by people we elect. Oversight is also done by people we elect. The responsibility always falls back on us.

[JRod]

I'll agree to disagree, especially if we're talking about wasteful government spending opposed to true criminal corruption in government.

The more money to which you have access, the more you're going to waste. And there's more tax money floating around Washington than any state house.

It may be different in Colorado, but there have been people elected to Congress here in Central New York who had minimal political office experience but were well connected to political parties because they owned successful corporations or were prominent attorneys in the area.

But none of those corporations had anywhere near the free-flowing money as Washington, and you damn well know that kind of cash is intoxicating when you seemingly have a blank check to spend it. And there aren't nearly as many lobbyists roaming the halls of companies and legal offices in Central New York as there are in the halls of Congress.

Going to Washington is the big time, and people who go there and intend to "change the system" and "make a difference" can fall prey to the seductive power of the money of D.C. just like an athlete who says "I won't change" and "I'll stay true to my original friends" as he turns pro and then turns into a complete, ostentatious asshole.

There are exceptions, but to say that the power and money of Washington don't corrupt anyone who isn't already painted by the brush of scum is far-fetched, in my opinion.

Take care,
PK

Who elected them, Paul? Not the companies. Not the money. The money gets out the message. The companies or lobbyists might supply the money. But last time I checked, you, your wife and everyone over the age of 18 that was registered to vote put them in office, well the ones that voted for the particular candidate.

There's a difference between being influenced and corrupted. Your assumption is that all money corrupts every time. That's simply not true. There are more exceptions than rules in Washington but good never gets reported on because it's boring.

Is there undue influence put on electeds by money or power from various entities, absolutely. But your are wrong in thinking that power and money will corrupt every time.

But here again, who elected them Paul. Who re-elects them. Money doesn't because Money can't vote. Power doesn't because it can't vote. Power can get you money and money can buy staff, ads, or yard signs. But at the end of the day, the responsibility falls back of your fellow electors not to be persuaded by the campaign gimmicks. That's when real change will happen. [/url]

[greggsand]

I gotta go with Jrod on this one. Politcal power, money, or whatever only helps facilitate an evil person. Perhaps everyone once in awhile someone goes to the darkside, but a bad (or good) apple is a bad (or good) apple.

Hey if GW wasn't ruining the country, he'd be ruining some corporation (or baseball team!) right about now...

[Feanor]

Gramm, since leaving office, has been working in industry. Currently he's a director of UBS, the Swiss bank which announced over $10 billion in writeoffs this week.

Gramm is also McCain's economic advisor...

I read about Gramm being McCain's economic advisor last week in a Paul Krugman column. That's one of the reasons I classed McCain as having hard-right policies, despite his maverick/centrist image.

[pk500]

But here again, who elected them Paul. Who re-elects them. Money doesn't because Money can't vote. Power doesn't because it can't vote. Power can get you money and money can buy staff, ads, or yard signs. But at the end of the day, the responsibility falls back of your fellow electors not to be persuaded by the campaign gimmicks. That's when real change will happen.

A lever never would be pulled, a box never would be checked, and a chad never would be left hanging if the American public was truly educated and only voted for those completely qualified to hold elected office who campaigned without gimmicks.

You're living in Bizzaroworld if you think otherwise. Any election at the state level or higher in America among the Republicans and Democrats consists of voting for the lesser of two evils. Sad, but that's what it has come down to in America.

Take care,
PK

[Naples39]

Jrod,

Surely you don't believe that if Americans somehow voted smarter there would no longer be governmental waste, because frankly I think that's a pretty indefensible premise. Maybe that's not exactly what you meant but it seems to me to be the bottom line when you say Americans are responsible through voting.

Personally, I believe that history overwhelming suggests wasteful spending is inherit to our system of a democratic republic. That's okay, because as Churchill said, "democracy was the worst system of governance except all those other systems which have been tried from time to time."

Still we shouldn't let spending run amok. The only real way to limit wasteful spending in our government is to limit how much money they have to spend in the first place.

[JRod]

Jrod,

Surely you don't believe that if Americans somehow voted smarter there would no longer be governmental waste, because frankly I think that's a pretty indefensible premise. Maybe that's not exactly what you meant but it seems to me to be the bottom line when you say Americans are responsible through voting.

Personally, I believe that history overwhelming suggests wasteful spending is inherit to our system of a democratic republic. That's okay, because as Churchill said, "democracy was the worst system of governance except all those other systems which have been tried from time to time."

Still we shouldn't let spending run amok. The only real way to limit wasteful spending in our government is to limit how much money they have to spend in the first place.

No I never equated a more informed public to less government waste. I think you are merging PK's thread and Matthew's thread.

There will be some wasteful regardless of what we done. Oversight's role is to stamp those out. Even the most well intentioned program could turn out to be a siphon. The role of congress is to stamp things like that out.

[JRod]

But here again, who elected them Paul. Who re-elects them. Money doesn't because Money can't vote. Power doesn't because it can't vote. Power can get you money and money can buy staff, ads, or yard signs. But at the end of the day, the responsibility falls back of your fellow electors not to be persuaded by the campaign gimmicks. That's when real change will happen.

A lever never would be pulled, a box never would be checked, and a chad never would be left hanging if the American public was truly educated and only voted for those completely qualified to hold elected office who campaigned without gimmicks.

You're living in Bizzaroworld if you think otherwise. Any election at the state level or higher in America among the Republicans and Democrats consists of voting for the lesser of two evils. Sad, but that's what it has come down to in America.

Take care,
PK

I'm not advocating for a party structure. While I'm a member of one, I think it presents more problems for America than solutions.

You fail to understand that the burden of responsibility will always fall back on the electorate. That's my point.

And to say that an enlighten electorate would through off government is completely assbackwards it shouldn't even be a debating point. People know they need the mechanisms set-up in government to allow for certain freedoms.

Humans couldn't exist in this day and age without some sort of governance and I think only those with so much misguided disdain for government want to cast it off.

[wco81]

You don't think there's waste in the private sector?

COMMON SENSE

No Tears for Mr. Cayne
By James B. Stewart |James B. Stewart Archive |Published: March 25, 2008



LAST SUMMER, WHEN two Bear Stearns (BSC: 10.47, -0.25, -2.33%) hedge funds collapsed, Bear Stearns Chairman and Chief Executive James Cayne was absorbed in a bridge tournament in Tennessee, according to a memorable profile in The Wall Street Journal. The unfolding credit crisis did nothing to deter his regular golf games last summer, nor did market volatility dissuade him from recently buying not one but two opulent apartments in Manhattan's former Plaza Hotel for $27.4 million. No one was more responsible for the high risk and reckless leverage that drove Bear Stearns to the brink of bankruptcy a week ago.

Poor Mr. Cayne. The $2 a share deal negotiated last week with the approval of the U.S. government, reducing his stake in the firm to a value of $14 million, wasn't good enough. This week J.P. Morgan Chase (JPM: 45.57, -0.71, -1.53%) boosted its offer fivefold, to $10 a share, to make Cayne and other large shareholders feel better.

In my view, Cayne and other Bear Stearns shareholders were lucky to get $2. I, too, feel bad for the rank-and-file at Bear Stearns who had no control over the firm's risk policies or balance sheet. But I feel worse for plenty of financially-strapped Americans. They won't be buying Central Park views with a taxpayer-financed windfall.

Cayne sold his stake for about $70 million a week or two ago.

CEOs are routinely rewarded regardless of how poorly companies perform under their stewardship.

Not only when they leave with golden parachutes but in the various perks for the executive suite.

Remember the uproar when some govt. officials or members of Congress got free use of military or private jets?

Well CEOs are given jets, which they lease back to the company for their personal use.

[matthewk]

Please...

First off, not all government spending is bad. If that's what you think then you are a part of the problem. An increase in spending isn't always a bad thing. In WW2 are spending increased exponentially, but by your logic that would be bad.

Do you even read the posts of others, or do you read as well as you type?

I never said ALL spending was bad. That's something you simply made up in order to start an argument. That's NOT what I think. If you read my words you would be able to see that.

[Naples39]

WCO:
Of course there's waste in the private sector, but again, people choose to invest in the private sector. Nobody forces you to buy into their programs.

Second, company waste eats into profits. Usually such schemes don't last very long because the people with vested interests in the company won't tolerate it.

JRod:
Sorry if I mixed up what you and PK were saying. I didn't think that was your intention because it was a pretty unbelievable premise.

[pk500]

There will be some wasteful regardless of what we done. Oversight's role is to stamp those out. Even the most well intentioned program could turn out to be a siphon. The role of congress is to stamp things like that out.

Then how do you propose a complete reversal of the current equation, in which Congress has no oversight and continues to spend, spend, spend?

Don't throw it on the laps of the public, because both parties want to spend, spend, spend. It's just to what degree we can tolerate the waste, who will spend less.

You completely misunderstood my point about an informed electorate not voting. I'm not endorsing anarchy. My point is that if Americans had to wait for clean politicians who didn't want to spend and waste their tax money before they decided to vote, a vote never would be cast.

We're left to vote for the lesser of two evils, whatever your favorite flavor of evil might be.

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

WCO:
Of course there's waste in the private sector, but again, people choose to invest in the private sector. Nobody forces you to buy into their programs.

Second, company waste eats into profits. Usually such schemes don't last very long because the people with vested interests in the company won't tolerate it.

Exactly. When the private sector participates in wasteful spending, they are wasting their profits and the funds of private investors. They're not wasting the tax money paid by every working American.

Of course, there are industries that receive government subsidies and waste those funds. But that's a whole different ball of wax, as I think government subsidies to industry should be drastically slashed.

If you're afraid of corporate America wasting your money, then don't invest. You don't have that choice with Uncle Sam -- you must pay income taxes whether you trust him or not.

Take care,
PK

[wco81]

WCO:
Of course there's waste in the private sector, but again, people choose to invest in the private sector. Nobody forces you to buy into their programs.

Second, company waste eats into profits. Usually such schemes don't last very long because the people with vested interests in the company won't tolerate it.

Exactly. When the private sector participates in wasteful spending, they are wasting their profits and the funds of private investors. They're not wasting the tax money paid by every working American.

Of course, there are industries that receive government subsidies and waste those funds. But that's a whole different ball of wax, as I think government subsidies to industry should be drastically slashed.

If you're afraid of corporate America wasting your money, then don't invest. You don't have that choice with Uncle Sam -- you must pay income taxes whether you trust him or not.

Take care,
PK

No but you suggested that a lot of the things the govt. has been doing should go to the private sector.

How many billions are going to the bottom line of insurers and pharmaceuticals?

A Harvard Med School study attributed 25% of total health care spending per year of $1.6 to $2 trillion to the bureaucracy to process health insurance claims. $400-500 billion a year to process paperwork, hire people just to do that paper work.

And it's not like we really have a choice in insurers. Employers offer open enrollment of various plans but all plans have this issue.

Few people are going to opt-out of health benefits unless they can be covered through a spouse or a parent.

In this case there is little or no consumer choice or accountability.

Now look at govt. granted monopolies like your telephone service or your cable service. People hate cable companies but well over half the country are customers.

Imagine letting a handful of politically-connected companies take over key highways and thoroughfares in metro areas. You can look at the privatization of key rail routes in the UK and see if for instance maintenance rates improved under private ownership.

[dougb]

WCO:
Of course there's waste in the private sector, but again, people choose to invest in the private sector. Nobody forces you to buy into their programs.

Second, company waste eats into profits. Usually such schemes don't last very long because the people with vested interests in the company won't tolerate it.

Exactly. When the private sector participates in wasteful spending, they are wasting their profits and the funds of private investors. They're not wasting the tax money paid by every working American.

Of course, there are industries that receive government subsidies and waste those funds. But that's a whole different ball of wax, as I think government subsidies to industry should be drastically slashed.

If you're afraid of corporate America wasting your money, then don't invest. You don't have that choice with Uncle Sam -- you must pay income taxes whether you trust him or not.

Take care,
PK

Ever looked at one of those defense contracts?

Best wishes,

Doug