2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBernie Sanders ‘Mistaken’ With Criticism Over Action During Financial Crisis, Ben Bernanke Says
ABC News: Bernie Sanders ‘Mistaken’ With Criticism Over Action During Financial Crisis, Ben Bernanke SaysSanders specifically has taken aim at Bernanke and his job performance on more than one occasion, including in 2009 when he said Bernanke "failed at all four core responsibilities of the Federal Reserve" during the crisis.
“I concede that regulators and Congress and many people didn't see the crisis coming and made mistakes. But once the crisis began, I think the Fed acted appropriately and aggressively and did what had to be done to get us back through the other side,” Bernanke continued. "I think that those criticisms substantively are not accurate."
Bernie + Bernake in 2009
And 2012
Again in 2013
Related:
Democracy Now!: Robert Reich on Glass-Steagall and Bernie Sanders
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)If everyone in congress voted against bailing out Wall Street, what do you think would have happened to the middle class, pensions, and unemployment?
Yes, we all agree that we should put in place tighter market regulation, and that it sucked having to bail out WS, but someone give me their realistic view of what America would look like had we wiped out all those banks. Would your life be better? Would the lives of minorities be better? Would letting banks fail and wiping out all that wealth have helped Main Street? Bernie's vote was callous and reckless and luckily wasn't consensus.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Previous generations had broken them up before. Our generations stupidly bought the line that government regulations were destroying our nation and helped business tear down the protections our parents enacted.
Just consider having to bail out crooks part of our penance for being very, very bad citizens.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)shareholders wiped out and their top management(s) fired.
Bernanke 'rescued' them so they can do it all over again. Marxism 101.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)Iceland had a good idea
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Luckily I don't even think Bernie is suggesting that.
still_one
(92,061 posts)followed that course.
Amazingly, many of the same comments made back then are still occurring, that is, they should have let the financial system collapse
The middle class would have been completely destroyed. Pensions, IRAs, Savings accounts lost.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)the consequences of their greed-driven decisions. It was socialism for the 1%, but capitalism red in tooth and claw for the rest of us.
Again, Marxism 101
still_one
(92,061 posts)did prosecute a few, but you are correct, more should have been held accountable, including Congress which had been deregulating slowly over the years. Dodd/Frank to a moderate degree did address some of the issues, but more definitely should be done. A lot will depend on the makeup of Congress.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)Last edited Sun Oct 11, 2015, 04:01 PM - Edit history (1)
still_one
(92,061 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)things turned turned out the way they did, they had to have turned out that way.) The U.S. was nowhere near a depression as economists use the term. (Basically, a 20% decline in GDP.) Bernanke and his cohort helped make the greedy, parasitical 1% whole . . . at the expense of the 99%. Why anyone with discernment pays any attention to this douche continues to bewilder me.
still_one
(92,061 posts)Human101948
(3,457 posts)http://www.globalresearch.ca/poverty-unemployment-enriching-the-few-the-2008-economic-crisis-and-the-restructuring-of-class-relations-in-america/5337520
The Pew report concluded, “From the end of the recession in 2009 through 2011… the 8 million households in the U.S. with a net worth above $836,033 saw their aggregate wealth rise by an estimated $5.6 trillion, while the 111 million households with a net worth at or below that level saw their aggregate wealth decline by an estimated $0.6 trillion.”
That would seem like a huge power transfer of private wealth.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)So it's obviously not "the tea party" line. And if Bernie isn't even suggesting it I don't even know what's to debate.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)The financial laws, taxes and regulations or lack thereof as well as the actions taken by the Federal Reserve have proven to be a mechanism for transferring wealth from the lower and middle classes to the ultra wealthy. That is a fact shown by the figures cited. Bernanke is a part of that mechanism.
"Grabbing private wealth" is a right wing meme.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)What would have happened to America had we let all the banks go under? That is the only question I'm posing.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)as they ended up doing. Just extract the people at the top and prosecute a good number of them. I think Iceland set the example. It is unfortunate that the financial sector has captured our government to do their bidding while threatening us with Armageddon if we dare to challenge them.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)But wouldn't that have to be done legislatively?
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)We're talking about companies that, without government intervention, are about to go bankrupt. What's the fair market value of one share of stock in such a company? Pretty small, I'd say. The government could give them the option of selling (be it their stock or their assets), at the offered price, or declining the government intervention and charting their own course. Their decision. That's not a "huge government power grab".
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)nt
KansDem
(28,498 posts)Like the Bank of North Dakota, the only state-run bank in the country.
Bank of North Dakota
Oh, and the officers arrested and put on trial...
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)continue operating as private entities.
To wit, if privately owned banks are too big to fail, they are too big to exist.
KansDem
(28,498 posts)"...if privately owned banks are too big to fail, they are too big to exist. "
x googol
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)What would have happened to America had we let all the banks go under? That is the only question I'm posing.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)It does not have any effect similar to nationalizing them. Nor does it prevent future collapse (it would make future collapse less risky for a given broken up "downsized" bank). If you broke up the banks the entire banking sector would be stronger.
If you nationalized the bank all risk would be taken by the government (and therefore the government would mitigate that risk by making sure stringent banking laws were in place; this would prevent future collapses).
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)initial reply, the result of being in a hurry.
Thanks for the annotations!
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Time_Lord
(60 posts)So why should we listen to the criminal Bernanke based on what he says? He and his ilk made off with millions of our dollars.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Still, does anyone want to hypothesize about what not rescuing banks would have done to America, notably the middle class? I agree that bankers should go to jail, and I'm glad Hillary's WS plan will do so. I am shocked that Bernie has not released a WS policy proposal.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Its a website with no affiliation to Sanders campaign. Just admit that currently Bernie has no WS policy proposal.
Time_Lord
(60 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Or is Bernie going to just stand on the sidelines and sling mud at others who put in the work?
Time_Lord
(60 posts)Instead of a proposal, actions has been taken.
Go back to Bernie's official stance, and look at key actions.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Would have wiped out the middle class and caused decades long suffering.
Time_Lord
(60 posts)It was the correct move; The bankers should have been arrested and placed in prison for it. Instead, they are given their golden parachutes and bonuses for fleecing the taxpayers.
Subprime mortgage, stealing homes out of people, toxic derivatives, finding ways to screw the 99%.
Bernie was right, and he's right now.
If the banks are too big to fail, then they are too big to exist, is what Bernie said.
And he's right.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)No bailout > middle class decimation > pensions wiped > no investment capital > jobs wiped out > no tax revenue > safety nets decimated > mass unemployment.
riversedge
(70,093 posts)newbie seems to be a bubble but you did well trying to instill some logic. 
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)e. Your resume is not big enough for you to comment on this and my resume is irrelevant to whether I can ban you from the discussion by pointing out the inadequacy of yours. This is an admitted know-nothing banning you from the discussion on the grounds that you do not know enough.
Rejected.
Time_Lord
(60 posts)arrested, their charter shut down, kicked out the shareholders and bondholders and have them arrested too for profit.
Seize all assets that the bank owns and put it back to the middle class. Break up the banks and start smaller community banks with charters that says they are never to merge as long as they receive governmental funds.
You remember seeing all those banks that failed for years after years. The Big Banks are JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Bank of New York, US Bancorp, HSBC, Capital One and many more. None of them failed. They are just too big to exist.
Let me show you something else:
JPMorgan Chase has 2.6 trillion in assets
Bank of America has 2.1 trillion in assets
Citigroup has 1.89 trillion in assets
Wells Fargo has 1.69 trillion in assets
That is trillions of dollars that are not being paid back to the U.S. Government in some form. There are even trillions overseas which need to be repatriated back to the U.S. Government in taxes. Why are they allowed to hold back taxpayer dollars and not pay it back to the government?
Your scenario fails. There are better scenarios than bailing them out. They failed to do so.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Is that a problem for you? What is your prescription for solving the problem?
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Was what would have happened to America if we did in fact let all banks fail?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Friom Sander's Senate website:
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2008/10/01/wall-street-bailout
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
The Senate approved a $700 billion Wall Street bailout. Senator Bernie Sanders voted against the bill that would put Wall Street's burden on the backs of the American middle class. "The bailout package is far better than the absurd proposal originally presented to us by the Bush administration, but is still short of where we should be," Sanders said. "If a bailout is needed, if taxpayer money must be placed at risk, if we are going to bail out Wall Street, it should be those people who have caused the problem, those people who have benefited from President Bush's tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, those people who have taken advantage of deregulation who should pick up the tab, not ordinary working people."
Sanders proposed a five-year, 10 percent surtax on families with incomes of more than $1 million year and individuals earning over $500,00 to raise $300 billion to help bankroll the bailout. Senators, however, set aside the amendment on a voice vote.
In a Senate floor speech, Sanders elaborated on the bailout bill's flaws:
"This country faces many serious problems in the financial market, in the stock market, in our economy. We must act, but we must act in a way that improves the situation. We can do better than the legislation now before Congress.
"This bill does not effectively address the issue of what the taxpayers of our country will actually own after they invest hundreds of billions of dollars in toxic assets. This bill does not effectively address the issue of oversight because the oversight board members have all been hand picked by the Bush administration. This bill does not effectively deal with the issue of foreclosures and addressing that very serious issue, which is impacting millions of low- and moderate-income Americans in the aggressive, effective way that we should be. This bill does not effectively deal with the issue of executive compensation and golden parachutes. Under this bill, the CEOs and the Wall Street insiders will still, with a little bit of imagination, continue to make out like bandits.
"This bill does not deal at all with how we got into this crisis in the first place and the need to undo the deregulatory fervor which created trillions of dollars in complicated and unregulated financial instruments such as credit default swaps and hedge funds. This bill does not address the issue that has taken us to where we are today, the concept of too big to fail. In fact, within the last several weeks we have sat idly by and watched gigantic financial institutions like the Bank of America swallow up other gigantic financial institutions like Countrywide and Merrill Lynch. Well, who is going to bail out the Bank of America if it begins to fail? There is not one word about the issue of too big to fail in this legislation at a time when that problem is in fact becoming even more serious.
"This bill does not deal with the absurdity of having the fox guarding the hen house. Maybe I'm the only person in America who thinks so, but I have a hard time understanding why we are giving $700 billion to the Secretary of the Treasury, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, who along with other financial institutions, actually got us into this problem. Now, maybe I'm the only person in America who thinks that's a little bit weird, but that is what I think.
"This bill does not address the major economic crisis we face: growing unemployment, low wages, the need to create decent-paying jobs, rebuilding our infrastructure and moving us to energy efficiency and sustainable energy.
"There is one issue that is even more profound and more basic than everything else that I have mentioned, and that is if a bailout is needed, if taxpayer money must be placed at risk, whose money should it be? In other words, who should be paying for this bailout which has been caused by the greed and recklessness of Wall Street operatives who have made billions in recent years?
"The American people are bitter. They are angry, and they are confused. Over the last seven and a half year, since George W. Bush has been President, 6 million Americans have slipped out of the middle class and are in poverty, and today working families are lining up at emergency food shelves in order to get the food they need to feed their families. Since President Bush has been in office, median family income for working-age families has declined by over $2,000. More than seven million Americans have lost their health insurance. Over four million have lost their pensions. Consumer debt has more than doubled. And foreclosures are the highest on record. Meanwhile, the cost of energy, food, health care, college and other basic necessities has soared.
"While the middle class has declined under President Bush's reckless economic policies, the people on top have never had it so good. For the first seven years of Bush's tenure, the wealthiest 400 individuals in our country saw a $670 billion increase in their wealth, and at the end of 2007 owned over $1.5 trillion in wealth. That is just 400 families, a $670 billion increase in wealth since Bush has been in office.
"In our country today, we have the most unequal distribution of income and wealth of any major country on earth, with the top 1 percent earning more income than the bottom 50 percent and the top 1 percent owning more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. We are living at a time when we have seen a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the very wealthiest people in this country, when, among others, CEOs of Wall Street firms received unbelievable amounts in bonuses, including $39 billion in bonuses in the year 2007 alone for just the five major investment houses. We have seen the incredible greed of the financial services industry manifested in the hundreds of millions of dollars they have spent on campaign contributions and lobbyists in order to deregulate their industry so that hedge funds and other unregulated financial institutions could flourish. We have seen them play with trillions and trillions dollars in esoteric financial instruments, in unregulated industries which no more than a handful of people even understand. We have seen the financial services industry charge 30 percent interest rates on credit card loans and tack on outrageous late fees and other costs to unsuspecting customers. We have seen them engaged in despicable predatory lending practices, taking advantage of the vulnerable and the uneducated. We have seen them send out billions of deceptive solicitations to almost every mailbox in America.
"Most importantly, we have seen the financial services industry lure people into mortgages they could not afford to pay, which is one of the basic reasons why we are here tonight.
"In the midst of all of this, we have a bailout package which says to the middle class that you are being asked to place at risk $700 billion, which is $2,200 for every man, woman, and child in this country. You're being asked to do that in order to undo the damage caused by this excessive Wall Street greed. In other words, the "Masters of the Universe," those brilliant Wall Street insiders who have made more money than the average American can even dream of, have brought our financial system to the brink of collapse. Now, as the American and world financial systems teeter on the edge of a meltdown, these multimillionaires are demanding that the middle class, which has already suffered under Bush's disastrous economic policies, pick up the pieces that they broke. That is wrong, and that is something that I will not support.
"If we are going to bail out Wall Street, it should be those people who have caused the problem, those people who have benefited from Bush's tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, those people who have taken advantage of deregulation, those people are the people who should pick up the tab, and not ordinary working people. I introduced an amendment which gave the Senate a very clear choice. We can pay for this bailout of Wall Street by asking people all across this country, small businesses on Main Street, homeowners on Maple Street, elderly couples on Oak Street, college students on Campus Avenue, working families on Sunrise Lane, we can ask them to pay for this bailout. That is one way we can go. Or, we can ask the people who have gained the most from the spasm of greed, the people whose incomes have been soaring under president bush, to pick up the tab.
"I proposed to raise the tax rate on any individual earning $500,000 a year or more or any family earning $1 million a year or more by 10 percent. That increase in the tax rate, from 35 percent to 45 percent, would raise more than $300 billion in the next five years, almost half the cost of the bailout. If what all the supporters of this legislation say is correct, that the government will get back some of its money when the market calms down and the government sells some of the assets it has purchased, then $300 billion should be sufficient to make sure that 99.7 percent of taxpayers do not have to pay one nickel for this bailout.
"Most of my constituents did not earn a $38 million bonus in 2005 or make over $100 million in total compensation in three years, as did Henry Paulson, the current secretary of the Treasury, and former CEO of Goldman Sachs. Most of my constituents did not make $354 million in total compensation over the past five years as did Richard Fuld of Lehman Brothers. Most of my constituents did not cash out $60 million in stock after a $29 billion bailout for Bear Stearns after that failing company was bought out by J.P. Morgan Chase. Most of my constituents did not get a $161 million severance package as E. Stanley O'Neill, former CEO Merrill Lynch did.
"Last week I placed on my Web site, www.sanders.senate.gov, a letter to Secretary Paulson in support of my amendment. It said that it should be those people best able to pay for this bailout, those people who have made out like bandits in recent years, they should be asked to pay for this bailout. It should not be the middle class. To my amazement, some 48,000 people cosigned this petition, and the names keep coming in. The message is very simple: "We had nothing to do with causing this bailout. We are already under economic duress. Go to those people who have made out like bandits. Go to those people who have caused this crisis and ask them to pay for the bailout."
"The time has come to assure our constituents in Vermont and all over this country that we are listening and understand their anger and their frustration. The time has come to say that we have the courage to stand up to all of the powerful financial institution lobbyists who are running amok all over the Capitol building, from the Chamber of Commerce to the American Bankers Association, to the Business Roundtable, all of these groups who make huge campaign contributions, spend all kinds of money on lobbyists, they're here loud and clear. They don't want to pay for this bailout, they want middle America to pay for it."
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I am sure as the campaigns progress, Bernie will be making proposals.
In the meantime if you are truly sincere about wanting to learn about his positions and policies, there is plenty of statements, votes, policy proposals and other information about Sanders available, going back to the early 1990's.
There's this wonderful website called Google. There are also others called You Tube, Bing, etc.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Whenever Bernie's criticism berns too hot he's going to be accused of slinging mud and not doing anything because you don't want to google for info?
Yeah, that'll work.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)My the hats you wear!
How about we think about this as individuals?
Instead of baking out Goldman Sachs you give that money to Americans to rebuild their shattered retirement funds?
Why are you supporting too big to fail monopolies??
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)"We don't need SS, let the individuals create their own retirement savings!". Retirement accounts grow through investing, not stashing it under your mattress with a 0.00% interest gain.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)That post lent your ideas a certain amount of credibility that, frankly, if you are not an economist, those posts did not deserve. If you are not I feel a little hoodwinked.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Seriously, you have no idea.
Big business DOES get around campaign finance laws by convincing their employees to do their dirty work.
What on earth are you talking about?
You're literally saying nothing.
demwing
(16,916 posts)that's the whole point of this circular argument. Damn the facts, Bernie is scary!
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)My post said nothing about campaign finance laws.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)still_one
(92,061 posts)through at the minimum another Great Depression. Instead of doing what they did during the Great Depression, the government prevented the financial institutions from imploding.
Cutting ones nose off to spite your face has never been a good solution. Bernanke learned was an expert in the Great Depression, and we averted a disaster that would have brought the country to its knees.
Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders were both against the bailout. The pain would have been unimaginable, and it would have taken at least a decade to even start coming out of it.
Sorry, but those voting against were very irresponsible.
Time_Lord
(60 posts)and they were never arrested and charged. Instead, they were given golden parachutes and stock bonuses.
It was the bankers' responsibility to clean up the mess, not the government's responsibility to bail them out of the mess they created.
Thus "Too big to fail banks" are too big to exist, and must be chopped down.
still_one
(92,061 posts)Dodd/Frank, while not perfect, did address the most significant issues that led to the disaster.
Even Bernake mentioned in his book that some of those responsible for the disaster should have been held accountable, however, that was not within his jurisdiction. He needed to prevent a complete financial meltdown, and succeeded.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)prevent the same thing happening again? Why are you still insisting this man made set of laws is some force of nature which we 'have to' endure? You say 'wipe them out or bail them out' as if those were the only choices, as if those laws were forces of nature, not choices made by people.
I think the rush to do the fast, mediocre bandage on the wound was a callous disregard for the hope of eventual healing and rehabilitation. To bail them out without demanding strong regulations in return was reckless and destines us to being plundered yet again.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)800,000 jobs a month were being decimated and we needed to put a floor on the destruction and quick. 90% of the market is psychological, what would America have looked like if the govt said "sorry no help for you"? It would have been far, far worse.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)"Cooperate with us or we will throw more of you out work and decimate your families...so shut up and be happy that we took these actions to prop up the one percent who are the source of the crumbs you enjoy."
The government could have also taken sterner measures to control and punish the bankers and Wall Street swindlers. They would have screamed like stuck pigs but justice would have been done. And as John Kasich has noted, they would have "gotten over it."
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)What would have happened to America had we let all the banks go under? That is the only question I'm posing.
cojoel
(953 posts)In other words, the middle class, the pensions, etc. would have been protected. The banks would have been closed and reopened by government operators and run by the former regular employees. The banks' executives, shareholders, and bondholders be out. That is the way government takeovers of banks always happened before this time.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Not sure why you believe we didn't. But you're also ok with collapsing the entire financial sector and tens if millions of jobs in the process?
uponit7771
(90,304 posts)... all of DU looked at FAUX news when it comes to the bailout and took it hook line and sinker
cojoel
(953 posts)We bailed out the owners, and to some degree the executives, in the name of saving the depositors.
Where do you get tens of millions of jobs? My proposal had all the banks remaining open, and all but the executives would still have their jobs. Just those responsible for the running the bank into the ground would be gone. I would think that would be more like tens of hundreds of jobs, and the jobs would still exist, just not held by those who were fired. Instead, we got years of austerity. I don't see how that is better.
Not only that, but the entire economy of the NY metro area is very dependent on the financial sector. And what would happen to the economy of the Northeastern Seaboard if NY goes down?
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Right off the bat, millions of NY'ers working in the financial sector would be laid off. And the ripple effect? Oof...
Remember, the Sarbanes Oxley act was enacted after the Enron debacle, and was meant to make IPO's more transparent. London, which did not have similar legislation, advertised itself as a place where you can initiate these offerings with a lot less red tape. The IPO business transferred quickly to London, which has since enjoyed quite a Renaissance in their financial sector. Sure, we need to regulate the financial industry to avoid a repeat of 2008. And I think Dodd Frank does a lot to meet that goal. I'm just suspicious of anyone who uses anti Wall Street rhetoric to rally the troops. And these days, you really have to look at the international ramifications of any regulatory legislature you are considering. It might just be useful to have a capitalist at the helm.
uponit7771
(90,304 posts)... they can afford the government not covering all the bases
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)...deemed TARP absolutely necessary.
If it didn't happen we'd have had a great depression.
The problem is that TARP came without any real world repercussions for the bankers. They didn't even bother to limit CEO bonuses, for example (which could've easily been done). Warren herself buried the TARP payouts under the umbrella of "conversations with Panel staff" so we don't even know what the hell the justifications were. They are all gone, lost to history (those "conversations" are not available anywhere publicly, because they were likely not even recorded; TARP was a blank check after all).
In the end, though, I agree with Sanders' vote and did not consider it "callous." The idea back then was to hold the bankers responsible. There were attempts to limit CEO bonuses, but they never gained traction and Clinton and Obama were certainly against doing anything more than a blank check because it was election season. If Sanders' vote was important to its passage then it would matter. As it stood it was immaterial.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)I think there was a sense of immediate urgency as we were losing 800k jobs a month. There was no appetite for a long drawn out senate fight to add amendments. They figured tackle the urgency then get around to rewriting the rules. We all agree with Bernie's vote ideologically, but it was reckless on a national level. That mindset would have collapsed the entire economy for decades.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)...Sanders doesn't play around though. You paint this picture where he could've thrown a wench into things over an ideological point. We didn't see that when the ACA dropped the public option.
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)As in Bernie's our Mr.-takin'-back the country from greedy parasitic Wall St. pigs whom Mr. Bernanke serves exclusively.
-app
still_one
(92,061 posts)bailout.
Perhaps you should read some history of The Great Depression. Bernanke, who you so easily throw barbs at, was an expert on the Great Depression, and did the exact opposite of what was done then, and prevented the Second Great Depression.
It was no small feat
Time_Lord
(60 posts)Too big to exist.
still_one
(92,061 posts)direction.
While that is a valid critique, among other things, Bernanke's directive was to halt the financial collapse, trying to push Congress to pass the 700 billion bailout, along with other reforms. His emphasis was on halting the collapse. The Dodd/Frank tried to address the other issues, and partially did so.
A lot of libertarians at the time were calling for letting the financial system collapse and prosecuting those responsible, while that may provide a visceral satisfaction, millions more would have suffered, and most likely still be suffering from the Aftermath. At the time the same folks calling to let the banks collapse, were opposing the auto bailout, where thousands more would have lost their jobs then already did. In fact it was Romney who called for letting GM go under Chapter 11. That is an easy thing for some to say, but it would have taken years for such a process, and would have made it virtually impossible for GM to come out of this, and a lot more auto workers would have lost their jobs. I remember the idiot boxes being so upset that the government setup the program cash for clunkers.
However, I agree, the financial reforms are far from complete, and those must be continued to be pursued. In regard to the bailout though, the 0% interest rate, etc. we dodged a very big bullet in my view.
Also, besides electing people who will work toward financial reforms, I believe they can still prosecute those they believe responsible. That I assume would come under the Justice Department and Congress.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Like everyone else, you have an opinion on the bailout, but you'll need to present your credentials before the scaremongering can carry any weight.
still_one
(92,061 posts)
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)Although I think the OP is someone who posts all sorts of "news" items, just to get discussion going.
Faux pas
(14,645 posts)
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)I sat in my insanely appreciated little condo, waiting for the house of cards to come crashing down. At peak, I sold, and took the money and ran. It crashed, just as I and many of my friends and coworkers predicted it would. Granted, I had only four economics courses in college, but do they think we're *total* idiots?
Banks needed to be broken up -- leaner, more competitive, not too big to fail. None of those mutherfuckers at the very top paid -- the little guy did. That was a highly immoral chapter in our nation's history, and Wall Street laughed. And they'll do it again. All with the help of pro-Wall Street Democrats. It's sickening what's happened to the Democratic Party.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)Lewis' The Giant Short? The book details those who spotted the con and made gazillions shorting worthless paper.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)I haven't read it, but read Liar's Poker way back when. Think I'll add it to my library list -- get ticked off even more!
Hydra
(14,459 posts)Look further upthread- and remember Condi Rice telling us "No one could have predicted..." when they had briefings and gamings of 9/11 all over the place.
They count on us trusting their word over obvious reality.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)I believe you, Condi... bombs away!
LWolf
(46,179 posts)
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Funny shit, bro.
.01e%er corrupt scumball.
Vinca
(50,237 posts)the financial collapse would never have happened? Between the corporate-owned media and corporate-owned politicians, people who stand up to Wall Street and the moneyed interests are painted as wingnuts and crackpots. Bernanke was an enabler. End of story.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Here's the thing, Ben. There were not only two options from which to deal with the tanking economy. It was not 'Do nothing and let everything go to Hell' or 'Save the rich and let trickle down allow the poor to maybe survive'.
Gloria
(17,663 posts)were presenting companion bills to audit the Fed. At the last moment, without warning, Sanders abandoned his own bill to vote for a watered-down version.....
