He is asking for the same power over companies getting bail outs that the FDIC gets when it takes over a bank. So if it looks like a bank and acts like a bank, then he wants to treat it like a bank.

I'd agree to him having the power to put some bullets in executive's kneecaps if they fark up. Can we give him that power?

Code_Archeologist: He is asking for the same power over companies getting bail outs that the FDIC gets when it takes over a bank. So if it looks like a bank and acts like a bank, then he wants to treat it like a bank.

sure, it starts with reasonable extensions to pre-existing regulation. but i think we both know where this ends - absolute monarchy.

thomps: Code_Archeologist: He is asking for the same power over companies getting bail outs that the FDIC gets when it takes over a bank. So if it looks like a bank and acts like a bank, then he wants to treat it like a bank.

sure, it starts with reasonable extensions to pre-existing regulation. but i think we both know where this ends - absolute monarchy.

Fearmonger much?

What's the argument against regulating them like banks?

thomps: Code_Archeologist: He is asking for the same power over companies getting bail outs that the FDIC gets when it takes over a bank. So if it looks like a bank and acts like a bank, then he wants to treat it like a bank.

sure, it starts with reasonable extensions to pre-existing regulation. but i think we both know where this ends - absolute monarchy.

Agreed.

un4gvn666: Fearmonger much?

sure it starts with fearmongering much, but i think we both know where it ends - teen pregnancy.

un4gvn666: Fearmonger much?

I'm certain that if this were a Republican administration and a Republican-appointed treasury secretary, Fark and the press would treat this story the same exact way, with level-headed critical analysis and lots of downplaying.

Oh, wait, I mean hysterical panic and insults.

I'm looking for the part of this.

Headso: What's the argument against regulating them like banks?

thomps: Code_Archeologist: He is asking for the same power over companies getting bail outs that the FDIC gets when it takes over a bank. So if it looks like a bank and acts like a bank, then he wants to treat it like a bank.

sure, it starts with reasonable extensions to pre-existing regulation. but i think we both know where this ends - absolute monarchy.

Apparently, another stupid "slippery slope" one. After all, it's much better to just let them grow uncontrollably, and then risk a massive financial meltdown, as long we don't do anything that could even REMOTELY be construed as more power to the government.

Yay!!!! This will surely end well. Maybe they can put Dodd or Ted Stevens in charge of this new agency.

playblu: I'm certain that if this were a Republican administration and a Republican-appointed treasury secretary, Fark and the press would treat this story the same exact way, with level-headed critical analysis and lots of downplaying.

Oh, wait, I mean hysterical panic and insults.

No, it'd probably be "it's about farking time".

Demetrius: I'm looking for the part of this.

S.A.D.?

thomps: un4gvn666: Fearmonger much?

sure it starts with fearmongering much, but i think we both know where it ends - teen pregnancy.

Damn you. My sarcasmometer is brokeded.

/Sorry, ignore my comment to Headso, too.

thomps: un4gvn666: Fearmonger much?

sure it starts with fearmongering much, but i think we both know where it ends - teen pregnancy.

Sure, it goes on to teen pregnancy. But I think we both know where it really ends - skullduggery & simony.

/and timecube

Power. MORE POWERRRRRRR HUURRRRRRRRR!!!

/tyranny

un4gvn666: thomps: Code_Archeologist: He is asking for the same power over companies getting bail outs that the FDIC gets when it takes over a bank. So if it looks like a bank and acts like a bank, then he wants to treat it like a bank.

sure, it starts with reasonable extensions to pre-existing regulation. but i think we both know where this ends - absolute monarchy.

Fearmonger much?

Better than walking through life with blinder on.
Will it happen? Who knows, but this is a step closer to allowing it. have to admit that President Obama is not my favorite guy but I will give him a fair shake when it comes to how he runs the executive branch. So far I am not that impressed. Some good, some bad, some down right scary. He seems to be in a bit over his head but only time will tell. Until then I will judge him one day at a time.

Code_Archeologist: He is asking for the same power over companies getting bail outs that the FDIC gets when it takes over a bank. So if it looks like a bank and acts like a bank, then he wants to treat it like a bank.

"This" in one. Good job!

thomps: sure, it starts with reasonable extensions to pre-existing regulation. but i think we both know where this ends - absolute monarchy.

I just want you to know that I appreciated your joke, unlike the others that did not.

playblu: un4gvn666: Fearmonger much?

I'm certain that if this were a Republican administration and a Republican-appointed treasury secretary, Fark and the press would treat this story the same exact way, with level-headed critical analysis and lots of downplaying.

Oh, wait, I mean hysterical panic and insults.

I know, if only we had one of those Republican administrations recently, they could've done this already and taken care of this problem before it got any worse. If only...

Demetrius: I'm looking for the part of this.

Should be Scary!

un4gvn666:
Apparently, another stupid "slippery slope" one. After all, it's much better to just let them grow uncontrollably, and then risk a massive financial meltdown, as long we don't do anything that could even REMOTELY be construed as more power to the government.

Clearly government regulation eliminates the risk of meltdowns. Clearly economic cycles will never occur if we jsut get more regulation. Clearly the government isn't corrupt.

See everyone? If you just let the government do everything, you can eliminate all risk from your lives. Isn't that what you want? Risk-free utopia? It's just around the corner! Don't wait!

playblu: I'm certain that if this were a Republican administration and a Republican-appointed treasury secretary, Fark and the press would treat this story the same exact way, with level-headed critical analysis and lots of downplaying.

at the beginning of the bush years, not at all. after a few years of his bullshiat, definitely. some of us are more interested in giving them a fighting chance to fix shiat than cutting them down at every turn.

Shryke: un4gvn666:
Apparently, another stupid "slippery slope" one. After all, it's much better to just let them grow uncontrollably, and then risk a massive financial meltdown, as long we don't do anything that could even REMOTELY be construed as more power to the government.

Clearly government regulation eliminates the risk of meltdowns. Clearly economic cycles will never occur if we jsut get more regulation. Clearly the government isn't corrupt.

See everyone? If you just let the government do everything, you can eliminate all risk from your lives. Isn't that what you want? Risk-free utopia? It's just around the corner! Don't wait!

Are you going for the STRAWMAN post of the week or something? Cuz if you are, well freakin done, my man.

/please, PLEASE show which part of my post said "just let the government do everything," moron.

un4gvn666: Fearmonger much?

Stupid much? When they are asking for the authority to take over nonbanking private companies that have not even failed, it's pretty scary.

"Never waste a good crisis"

FTA - "We have a moment now where there is broad-based will to change things that people did not want to change in the past"

Headso: What's the argument against regulating them like banks?

They would have to actually hold a ratio of their leveraged capital in physical funds, and that requirement would mean that they would not be able to generate billions of dollars by shifting around numbers on a balance sheet.

They might actually have to *gasp* work to earn a profit.

Shryke: See everyone? If you just let the government do everything, you can eliminate all risk from your lives.

using flippant arguments makes you look like a retard. lack of regulation, oversight and ethics got us into this mess. restoring some of that will help to prevent it happening again. no one is advocating for a complete and total government controlled economy.

I have a question. What does Power do, absolutely?

thomps: un4gvn666: Fearmonger much?

sure it starts with fearmongering much, but i think we both know where it ends - teen pregnancy.

Sure, its starts with teen pregnancy, but I think we both know where it ends...dancing to music like heathens.

cchris_39: Stupid much? When they are asking for the authority to take over nonbanking private companies that have not even failed, it's pretty scary.

dude, did you even read the article?

Who doesn't like giving the government more power? GOV-ERN-MENT! GOV-ERN-MENT!

/road to serfdom

These firms needs to be broken apart, not given implicit state guarantees. That's how we stop this from happening again. Not by rationalizing their stranglehold on the political economy.

Shryke: Clearly government regulation eliminates the risk of meltdowns. Clearly economic cycles will never occur if we jsut get more regulation. Clearly the government isn't corrupt.

Are you trying to ignore the fact that deregulation led to this fiasco? You're not doing a very good job of it.

GaryPDX: I have a question. What does Power do, absolutely?

exactly, that is why it's important to keep in check the power of the shadow banking system, because right now they have absolutely no oversight.

cchris_39: un4gvn666: Fearmonger much?

Stupid much? When they are asking for the authority to take over nonbanking private companies that have not even failed, it's pretty scary.

"Never waste a good crisis"

FTA - "We have a moment now where there is broad-based will to change things that people did not want to change in the past"

Yes, because "bring large hedge funds, private-equity firms and derivatives markets under federal supervision for the first time as part of a revamp of U.S. financial rules" is exactly the same as "break up any nonbanking financial firm we damn well please." Nuance is something that seems to be lost on you. They're just asking for the power to regulate these greedy bastards who have brought this economic mess on us. Funny that you should side with them.

GaryPDX: I have a question. What does Power do, absolutely?

Vic Power hit .319 in 1955. And don't call me "absolutely".

GaryPDX: I have a question. What does Power do, absolutely?

Nothing.

But absolute power, on the other hand...

The man didn't even pay his own taxes. He shouldn't have been given the power to mop the floors in a government building, let alone control of our nation's financial future.

un4gvn666: Are you going for the STRAWMAN post of the week or something? Cuz if you are, well freakin done, my man.

/please, PLEASE show which part of my post said "just let the government do everything," moron.

Strawman, eh? Let's see:

Your statement:

Apparently, another stupid "slippery slope" one. After all, it's much better to just let them grow uncontrollably, and then risk a massive financial meltdown, as long we don't do anything that could even REMOTELY be construed as more power to the government.

This appears to me that you are suggesting regulation is the answer. Clarify that for me.

un4gvn666: cchris_39: un4gvn666: Fearmonger much?

Stupid much? When they are asking for the authority to take over nonbanking private companies that have not even failed, it's pretty scary.

"Never waste a good crisis"

FTA - "We have a moment now where there is broad-based will to change things that people did not want to change in the past"

Yes, because "bring large hedge funds, private-equity firms and derivatives markets under federal supervision for the first time as part of a revamp of U.S. financial rules" is exactly the same as "break up any nonbanking financial firm we damn well please." Nuance is something that seems to be lost on you. They're just asking for the power to regulate these greedy bastards who have brought this economic mess on us. Funny that you should side withagainst them.

FTFM

Sure, let's extend the control and treat them like banks. 'Cause banks did so well under government oversight.

/ bang head against wall
/ repeat

Looks like the "invisible hand" is about to get smacked with a ruler.


Memo to Republicans and "libertarians": you might want to take your arguments about the virtues of laisse-Faire capitalism, and how the market regulates itself perfectly unless the evil gubmint gets invloved; and put them up on a high shelf somehwere; not to be taken down until this generation and the memory of this decade passes from the collective American consciousness.

See I DO believe that government fuctions best whe it has a loyal and effective opposition to keep it honest, and ya'll ain't going to fill that role if people are too busy laughing themselves sick everytime you open your mouths.

The lesson I seem to be learning here is that Government greed is better than private greed.

Lando Lincoln: GaryPDX: I have a question. What does Power do, absolutely?

Nothing.

But absolute power, on the other hand...

Any level corrupts, absolutely. Just because it's a government, it's still run by humans.

GaryPDX: I have a question. What does Power do, absolutely?

Power.com provides value added web services for MySpace, Orkut, Hi5, Youtube, Flogão, MSN, Google and other social networking sites....

GaryPDX: I have a question. What does Power do, absolutely?

Lady Will Power...its now or never.

Or Powers Boothe who plays a great dick on television?

Dancin_In_Anson: The lesson I seem to be learning here is that Government greed is better than private greed.

Easier to protect that greed, that's for sure.

Shryke: un4gvn666: Are you going for the STRAWMAN post of the week or something? Cuz if you are, well freakin done, my man.

/please, PLEASE show which part of my post said "just let the government do everything," moron.

Strawman, eh? Let's see:

Your statement:

Apparently, another stupid "slippery slope" one. After all, it's much better to just let them grow uncontrollably, and then risk a massive financial meltdown, as long we don't do anything that could even REMOTELY be construed as more power to the government.

This appears to me that you are suggesting regulation is the answer. Clarify that for me.

Seeing as you're a troll, I'll keep this brief.

Yes, I am suggesting that regulation is the answer....to THIS problem. The problem we have with derivatives and hedge funds polluting the financial markets with their toxic assets, and speculating on them instead of actually managing them. However, this is completely different from this horseshiat strawmen that you put up against me:

Shryke: See everyone? If you just let the government do everything, you can eliminate all risk from your lives.

thomps: GaryPDX: I have a question. What does Power do, absolutely?

exactly, that is why it's important to keep in check the power of the shadow banking system, because right now they have absolutely no oversight.

OH SNAP

Karma Curmudgeon: Power.com provides value added web services for MySpace, Orkut, Hi5, Youtube, Flogão, MSN, Google and other social networking sites....

max power takes everything to the extreme.

/got his name from a hair dryer