Congress should have learned by now that the people who they believe are targets of their legislation are almost always smarter than they are. So when they come up with what they think is brilliant legislation, it often doesn't accomplish it's objective, or even worse it encourages opposite behavior.

There was an article in The Wall Street Journal yesterday that explains a few ways that Wall Street can circumvent the $500,000 salary cap for Wall Street execs, which were being invented within minutes after the planned legislation was announced. This one was easy to beat...

• The bill only applies to the top management of Wall Street firms, not traders, hedge-fund managers and the genius 28-year olds who invent up all the impossible to understand derivatives.
• Almost all the jobs in a Wall Street firm can be sub-contracted out to other "independent" firms not subject to the legislation. Any job in a Wall Street firm can be sub-contracted, including top management.
• The proposed law doesn't inhibit the people who actually invent all the impossible to understand financial derivatives or manage the portfolios of the next wave of crappy assets.

The law is intended to punish those Congress thinks should be blamed for the current financial crisis, but will likely have the unintended consequence of encouraging tomorrow's Wall Street whiz-bangs to create a new set of financial problems for the next generation. And it certainly won't have the intended effect of encouraging Wall Street firms to either not take any more of the stimulus funds or repay the amounts they've already taken. In fact, Wall Street execs may be tempted to take greater risks in hopes of speeding up the repayment of the government stimulus injections. If their risks go bad, Uncle Sam will eat the losses--all uoside with no downside for the Wall Street traders.

About the only hope might be that some of the next generation of this stuff can be caught and stopped by government regulators--like those regulators who were supposed to prevent the salmonella in peanut butter.

This isn't a criticism of either the Republicans or Democrats--they both have done things that result in unintended consequences. They're simply not smart enough to outsmart the smarties.

Try to read the full article at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123396963383059235.html although you may have to be a WSJ subscriber to open and read the entire article

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Congress should have learned by now that the people who they believe are targets of their legislation are almost always smarter than they are. So when they come up with what they think is brilliant legislation, it often doesn't accomplish it's objective, or even worse it encourages opposite behavior.

There was an article in The Wall Street Journal yesterday that explains a few ways that Wall Street can circumvent the $500,000 salary cap for Wall Street execs, which were being invented within minutes after the planned legislation was announced. This one was easy to beat...

• The bill only applies to the top management of Wall Street firms, not traders, hedge-fund managers and the genius 28-year olds who invent up all the impossible to understand derivatives.
• Almost all the jobs in a Wall Street firm can be sub-contracted out to other "independent" firms not subject to the legislation. Any job in a Wall Street firm can be sub-contracted, including top management.
• The proposed law doesn't inhibit the people who actually invent all the impossible to understand financial derivatives or manage the portfolios of the next wave of crappy assets.

The law is intended to punish those Congress thinks should be blamed for the current financial crisis, but will likely have the unintended consequence of encouraging tomorrow's Wall Street whiz-bangs to create a new set of financial problems for the next generation. And it certainly won't have the intended effect of encouraging Wall Street firms to either not take any more of the stimulus funds or repay the amounts they've already taken. In fact, Wall Street execs may be tempted to take greater risks in hopes of speeding up the repayment of the government stimulus injections. If their risks go bad, Uncle Sam will eat the losses--all uoside with no downside for the Wall Street traders.

About the only hope might be that some of the next generation of this stuff can be caught and stopped by government regulators--like those regulators who were supposed to prevent the salmonella in peanut butter.

This isn't a criticism of either the Republicans or Democrats--they both have done things that result in unintended consequences. They're simply not smart enough to outsmart the smarties.

Try to read the full article at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123396963383059235.html although you may have to be a WSJ subscriber to open and read the entire article

I know where your allegiances lie VK, but honestly dont you see this as a total political ploy from the beginning. I feel that way, and it is also a weather vane to allow us to see how far government WANTS to creep into private industry !!!

MAYBE if gov. had done a little "creeping" the greed merchants would not have the country upside down.

Tony C

Originally Posted by Bucco

I know where your allegiances lie VK...

You know, Bucco, after reading lots of your posts I'm convinced that you don't have the faintest clue where my allegiances lie.

But I can tell you a couple of things. I'm not afraid to gather, study and evaluate the facts regarding rapidly-changing situations facing our country. I'd like to think I'm fair in evaluating possible actions or soultions and whether government can or should be involved in providing or enabling them. And I'm definitely not afraid to evaluate the political situation in the country so that I might exercise my most basic right--to vote for elected representatives--without being bound to a particular party or ideology.

In the meantime, why don't you keep worrying about the things that continually worry you and refrain from telling me what you think I believe--or should believe. I'll take care of that myself.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

You know, Bucco, after reading lots of your posts I'm convinced that you don't have the faintest clue where my allegiances lie.

But I can tell you a couple of things. I'm not afraid to gather, study and evaluate the facts regarding rapidly-changing situations facing our country. I'd like to think I'm fair in evaluating possible actions or soultions and whether government can or should be involved in providing or enabling them. And I'm definitely not afraid to evaluate the political situation in the country so that I might exercise my most basic right--to vote for elected representatives--without being bound to a particular party or ideology.

In the meantime, why don't you keep worrying about the things that continually worry you and refrain from telling me what you think I believe--or should believe. I'll take care of that myself.

SIGH....another lecture from the self indulgent Big Kahuana.

And regarding your comment...."I'd like to think I'm fair in evaluating possible actions or soultions and whether government can or should be involved in providing or enabling them."

You are not !!!

Your posts are well written and well crafted thus giving the impression that you know something and are open, but you are not.

As tired as you are of being called on your idealogy, I am tired of you and others labeling me as well with absolutely no credence. You may have read a few of my posts.....I am sure about my opposition to the socialist government now in power, and have conveniently ignored those criticizing the last administration thus you find it easy to label me as not being open.

You feel anyone who disagrees with you is NOT OPEN and you label them.


My comment about where your allegiances lay seemed to bother you yet you have announced them on here over and over and over. You support President Obama totally (I think you said you would give him two years or something like that)....you support a large financial bailout.

Nobody at anytime every accused you of anything else....while my list I just gave is very limited is there anything on there that I have misrespresented ?



I express my opinion that it was a political ploy and because you dont agree you go on the attack and accuse me of not being open......and that VK is so far from true...your assumption is based on one thing....my opposition to your candidate being President. This is a political board open to anyone and everyone who wished to participate. You seem to take great delight in personally making comments about me and that is your right.

...President Obama IS my candidate. He is my President and will remain so until his body of work demonstrates that isn't getting the job done. If there is a more qualified candidate with better plans, I'll vote for him or her. But unlike you, I'm not ready to declare President Obama unfit before he's had a reasonable chance to do the job. Your candidate didn't win the election and you've never gotten over it. Your party was so devisive and so damaged our government that the public threw them out on their self-serving behinds. You just can't get over it. You label people with ideological labels that their actions and decisions don't justify. Even though the last administration had eight years to screw things up, you're unwilling to give the Obama administration even two weeks!

If you want to blame someone for driving the U.S. towards nationalism or socialism, blame the former administration. It was their profligate spending, lack of leadership and ideological and incompetent governance that's gotten us to where we are. It was your candidate who said on more than one occasion that he agreed with that approach.

So far, President Obama has signed only one bill passed by Congress--HB 1, which provides for equal pay for equal work for women. Do you want to know my feelings on that bill? I support the legislation and agree with it.

If you want to tag some politicians with your goofy "socialist" label, try George Bush, Dick Cheney, Denny Hastert, Trent Lott and Bill Frist. The problems that have gotten us to where we are now had their genisis on their watch. If our economy has deteriorated to the point that dramatic action by the government is needed to stabilize it, blame it on them. Stick your "socialist" label on their foreheads! If you don't agree that that was their ideology, then change it up and put a big INCOMPETENT stamp on them.

In the meantime, your lame attempts to blame what has happened to our country on an administration that has been on the job for about two weeks is so stupid as to be laughable.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

...President Obama IS my candidate. He is my President and will remain so until his body of work demonstrates that isn't getting the job done. If there is a more qualified candidate with better plans, I'll vote for him or her. But unlike you, I'm not ready to declare President Obama unfit before he's had a reasonable chance to do the job. You're candidate didn't win the election and you've never gotten over it. Your party was so devisive and so damaged our government that the public threw them out on their self-serving behinds. You just can't get over it. You label people with ideological labels that their actions and decisions don't justify.

If you want to blame someone for driving the U.S. towards nationalism or socialism, blame the former administration. It was their profligate spending, lack of leadership and ideological and incompetent governance that's gotten us to where we are. It was your candidate who said on more than one occasion that he agreed with that approach.

So far, President Obama has signed only one bill passed by Congress--HB 1, which provides for equal pay for equal work for women. Do you want to know my feelings on that bill? I support the legislation and agree with it.

If you want to tag some politicians with your goofy "socialist" label, try George Bush, Dick Cheney, Denny Hastert, Trent Lott and Bill Frist. The problems that have gotten us to where we are now had their genisis on their watch. If our economy has deteriorated to the point that dramatic action by the government is needed to stabilize it, blame it on them. Stick your "socialist" label on their foreheads! If you don't agree that that was their ideology, then change it up and put a big INCOMPETENT stamp on them.

In the meantime, your lame attempts to blame what has happened to our country on an administration that has been on the job for about two weeks is so stupid as to be laughable.

Hmmm...kinda hard to argue with the truth.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

...President Obama IS my candidate. He is my President and will remain so until his body of work demonstrates that isn't getting the job done. If there is a more qualified candidate with better plans, I'll vote for him or her. But unlike you, I'm not ready to declare President Obama unfit before he's had a reasonable chance to do the job. Your candidate didn't win the election and you've never gotten over it. Your party was so devisive and so damaged our government that the public threw them out on their self-serving behinds. You just can't get over it. You label people with ideological labels that their actions and decisions don't justify. Even though the last administration had eight years to screw things up, you're unwilling to give the Obama administration even two weeks!

If you want to blame someone for driving the U.S. towards nationalism or socialism, blame the former administration. It was their profligate spending, lack of leadership and ideological and incompetent governance that's gotten us to where we are. It was your candidate who said on more than one occasion that he agreed with that approach.

So far, President Obama has signed only one bill passed by Congress--HB 1, which provides for equal pay for equal work for women. Do you want to know my feelings on that bill? I support the legislation and agree with it.

If you want to tag some politicians with your goofy "socialist" label, try George Bush, Dick Cheney, Denny Hastert, Trent Lott and Bill Frist. The problems that have gotten us to where we are now had their genisis on their watch. If our economy has deteriorated to the point that dramatic action by the government is needed to stabilize it, blame it on them. Stick your "socialist" label on their foreheads! If you don't agree that that was their ideology, then change it up and put a big INCOMPETENT stamp on them.

In the meantime, your lame attempts to blame what has happened to our country on an administration that has been on the job for about two weeks is so stupid as to be laughable.

Again, another lecture based on my comment about the ceiling on exectutive pay. Do you lecture people all day.

I have said consistently since and during the primaries that I felt that President Obama brings nothing but socialist themes to the WH. Should I change my thoughts because he won the election ? Is that what you want me to do ?

My candidate you say......if you can show me ONE SINGLE POST where I alluded to anyone as MY candidate or even hinted at it...you will read many times where I expressed fear of our current President, but NONE.....NONE where I actually supported anyone else thus you are simply making things up !

Next, and there is so much...PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE I BLAMED WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THIS COUNTRY ON THE CURRENT PRESIDENT. THAT never happened either.

Please if you feel the need to preach, at least make sure you are dealing with facts. All that you accuse me of .....I never declared President Obama unfit or EVEN IMPLIED IT and why you must make these emotional and dramatic charges escapes me. I will criticize the President when I wish...or at least we used to be able to do that....and will hope that you will not take the liberty of putting words in my mouth.

Oh, and your comment about "my party" while not funny to you brings a roar of laughter to me and anyone who knows me but that will be for another time but you are not even in the same atmosphere with that charge !!!

One more thing I should mention.....S 81 was not in fact a bill "which provides for equal pay for equal work for women." It actually set parameters on occurences to eliminate the statute of limitations on cases involving equal pay as a result of Lilly Ledbetter having her case thrown out by the Supreme Court, and NO I do not want to hear your opinion on the case....I know all about it...it is not new news at all. Was kept out of law by the Republicans for years and revolves around a lady who didnt know or realize her pay was not equal for about 10 years or so and the original law had a statute of limitations.

Originally Posted by Bucco

Again, another lecture...

Lecture (definition) - An exposition on a given subject delivered for the purpose of instruction.

No, that's not what I was attempting. I wouldn't waste my time trying to instruct you on any of the subjects discussed in this forum.

Debate (definition) - To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.

I wasn't attempting that either. It also would be a waste of time.

Foment (definition) - To incite.

Now we're getting closer.

But wait...there is a word that needs definition...

Socialism (definition) - Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities for all individuals with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation.

Is that what you believe President Bush had in mind when he nationalized the banking system and our largest insurance company with TARP? Or when he invested almost $20 billion in GM and Chrysler, about 6-7 times their market value at the time? Those were actions taken by the last administration, not the new one, and at a time when the administration and the Congress were controlled by different political parties. The authority for the executive branch to do that came as the result of their strong request that the Congress give the Treasury Department that kind of authority and funding.

Wow! Although the current administration and Congress has yet to pass such legislation and begin further actions to nationalize various governmental functions, companies or industries--although it's likely that they will shortly--I guess we can conclude that both our political parties and the majority of our elected officials have "socialist" leanings, as you say.

I wonder what happened to have caused our government to abandon capitalism as our fundamental economic system so abruptly? Curious, don't you think?

I am not convinced we have, but most assuredly it seems Washington is working in that direction.
My opinion on some of it is the government has put way too much emphasis on the entitlement of the masses.
Much has been said on this forum and others about the days gone by when, if one could not afford something....they simply just did not get it and did without.
That problem was magnified to a point of ruination is the recent greed fest called the housing market. The thresh hold qualifier was having a pulse. The continuous aspect of something for everybody whether they could avoid it or not was/is still, just wrong.
Allowing banks, builders, investors and speculators to prostitute the system for monetary gain with no accountability or proof of ability to pay has proven to be criminal in practice. Hence overloading the system with junk financing.

The other entitlement group(s) in the USA that have contributed to erosion of the system are the illegal aliens. There is a distorted prejudice by our government to supply these people benefits the average American are not entitled.

Where is it written that the have nots are entitled to any more than they can earn or accumulate on their own? Most of us grew up under that economic scenario.

The completely stupid approach by our financial institutions to give credit (other than mortgages) to people who in no way possible could afford to have it. Why?

There is no real mystery to how we got to where we are and are still heading.
The government has been and is now at full throttle to provide not only the have nots with benefits for no cost, they have mindlessly moved into the mode of handing out billions to the businesses that have knowingly raped the system. Cheating CEOs, CFOs, permissive irresponsible boards of directors rewarding the executives of tanking companies....cheating, lying, stealing, prostituting the system politicians continuously elected, re-elected while scamming for personal gain...only to be allowed to remain in office by such a tainted ethic body known as Congress/Senate/Governors/Mayors/Judges....too many of which not only are not qualified to be in office but are law breakers to boot....condoned by we the people.

The ongoing erosion of this countries core values, continuously compromised by the minorities, the illegals, the special interest groups, the permissive pacifist, don't make anybody made, spineless non decision making politically correct idiots....and more than I can list....

This has been in the works for years....those who try to compartmentalize blame to one party or another or one administration or another are unrealistic.

As stated by me in many previous posts....I am in favor of a revolution (which will never happen)....re-introduce the core values of old...if you didn't earn it you don't get it...reinstate the performers get the goods, all others doing little or nothing get what they earn, squat.

As our generation parts with life and the upcoming entitlement generations prevail, how could there be any hope for improvement.

Just think of life today as being as good as it will ever be from here on in.
Our time with it is short. I feel badly for what we the people have left for our children/grandchildren/et al.

With the help of the media, we the people are not so slowly becoming more lemming like every day. The stand up and be counted....America love it or leave crowd are too quickly being displaced...we are rapidly becoming the minority as proven by statistics...

No mystery here except denial that it has been in play for years!!!!

BTK

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Lecture (definition) - An exposition on a given subject delivered for the purpose of instruction.

No, that's not what I was attempting. I wouldn't waste my time trying to instruct you on any of the subjects discussed in this forum.

Debate (definition) - To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.

I wasn't attempting that either. It also would be a waste of time.

Foment (definition) - To incite.

Now we're getting closer.

But wait...there is a word that needs definition...

Socialism (definition) - Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities for all individuals with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation.

Is that what you believe President Bush had in mind when he nationalized the banking system and our largest insurance company with TARP? Or when he invested almost $20 billion in GM and Chrysler, about 6-7 times their market value at the time? Those were actions taken by the last administration, not the new one, and at a time when the administration and the Congress were controlled by different political parties. The authority for the executive branch to do that came as the result of their strong request that the Congress give the Treasury Department that kind of authority and funding.

Wow! Although the current administration and Congress has yet to pass such legislation and begin further actions to nationalize various governmental functions, companies or industries--although it's likely that they will shortly--I guess we can conclude that both our political parties and the majority of our elected officials have "socialist" leanings, as you say.

I wonder what happened to have caused our government to abandon capitalism as our fundamental economic system so abruptly? Curious, don't you think?

Your attacks on me, now insultiing or implying something about my intellegence, is noted.

I get your point...I am not up to your level of intelligence or ability to have a discussion with you. I assume you believe with the ferociousness of your words that I am alone in my thoughts.

Well, there are a few of us "dummies" out here...we hope that you smart intelligent folks will continue to try and educate us properly and hope we get up to speed soon. I surely apologize for coming in from the dark places and pushing you to insult me but hey...how can us dumb people ever learn anything. I guess I didnt understand or am incapable of understanding all the items you reference about me that are not true, but hey...I am trying to learn.

This is a great country, one which I served with pride, one in which I have been actively involved in politics all my life, for a few years basically 24 hours a day...and those years with the Democratic party (to your surprise). I know the difference between disagreeing and criticizing a President and still being a good american. You obviously feel I cannot criticize the President without being, I suppose, sacriligious !

I dont, and never have professed to be RIGHT...CORRECT....NEVER MISTAKEN. I have never told anyone how they should feel and if you TRUELY did any searching of my posts, you will find that I have said a number of times that I hoped I was wrong, but that would not serve your purpose to recall or post !

I will continue to read and hopefully be able to understand your posts !

Is that what you believe President Bush had in mind when he nationalized the banking system and our largest insurance company with TARP? Or when he invested almost $20 billion in GM and Chrysler, about 6-7 times their market value at the time? Those were actions taken by the last administration, not the new one, and at a time when the administration and the Congress were controlled by different political parties. The authority for the executive branch to do that came as the result of their strong request that the Congress give the Treasury Department that kind of authority and funding.
__________________________________________________ __________

To speak directly to this comment, I agree...this is a quote from a post I made on FEB 7 when the same issue was brought up in the thread "The Stimulus Package".....and the same type comment was made...

".....I DO blame him for not handling the first TARP payment appropriately for sure..he and Paulson."

Notwithstanding the "friendly" discussion between VK and Bucco, the bottom line here is that our government is being run (and has been) by a bunch of simpletons that have no understanding of anything about the economy other than how to feather their own nests. We are going to get what we voted for...a financial, economic and social disaster.

When is anyone going to address the fact that continued growth and consumption are simply unsustainable. Maybe the American public is smarter than we think. They are actually saving and NOT buying all the crap they've been told they need. The saving paradigm is not on the agenda of today's businesses. It will be interesting to see how it is dealt with.

I don't know if it's the changing paradigm that President Obama referred to as "the lost decade", but I agree with you, the way of life that we have known for a long time is in the process of changing. I'm not certain the changes will all be bad.

• More saving, less spending
• A return to the olden days, when people didn;t spend next year's raise even before they got it
• Normal sized houses instead of McMansions
• Less consumption of "expendable" items, maybe leading to the production of more useable and durable products
• A necessarily greater emphasis on "family values", instead of just rattling off the words in a sound bite.
• A simpler life, a simpler diet, less discretionary spending
• A greater emphasis and concern for what's happening in our country to our fellow citizens
• Maybe a return to the comfort and peace of religious beliefs
• Hopefully an elevated concern for our fellow citizens whose lot in life is even more challenging than our own

I'm sure there are a lot more potential advantages that could result from our current situation that I haven't thought of.

Now...if we can stop paying professional athletes tens or millions of dollars to play kids' games, it might be evidence of a step in the right direction.

Ideologies are wonderful, but they don't feed the bulldog, as feeding the dog requires practical effort versus over-the-rainbow idealism.

We all suffer from some form of idealism, mellowed somewhat with the pragmatism of fiscal shock that accompanies our retirement funds balance.

We can do the blame game for infinity, but no single Presidential administration can be tagged as demonistic. The "last one was the worst" has been the political battle cry for eons, and will also be said about the current one when he eventually leaves the government housiing facility on PA Ave, DC. Even George Wahington was slammed by those who sought to replace him, as many back then thought he may have been a half-decent general, but were cooled on his domestic and foreign policies. "Yeah, but..." just doesn't cut it, and sure won't make tomorrow any better.

VK - you and I definitely disagree on the performance of Pres. Obama so far. If the choices for the majority of the Cabinet Secretary posts are truly his (and not DNC-directed), then nominating tax scofflaws, persons with no technical insight on agency operations, and folk with imputed ethical questionability is to me "performance" as much as signing a bill which has cleared the Congress. Whipsawing Congressional action via fearmongering is scurrilous, especially when such action does indeed concern itself with a pork-stuffed billl, and pulpiting that "there is no pork" does not make it so. We may have lost a lot of our talents in our senior years, but we still can read and cipher.

In the end, this "stimulus package" will be paid by less than one-third of the population, as these are the people who actually have a federal tax consequence. Being one of the "lucky 1/3rd," I just don't see the stimulus package as a thought-driven program, but a rush-to-spend. In other words, there is no true cost-benefit analysis to back up the claims of XX-million new jobs or anything else - just some rhetoric and hypotheses based on unknown data. If I took such a risk-loaded and special-payments plan to a venture capitalist or other lending institution for funding - and said you have no time to review or critique it, just pony up the money NOW - I'd be laughed out of the building.

The past - including the Clinton, Bush-42, Carter, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, and so on years - is now the past. They all were both good and lousy, depending on the issue(s). Let's now look at today and tomorrow, so the day-after-tomorrow isn't worse than today.