Heh.. that was so rational I knew it had to be from Huntsman. Is he sure he's a Republican?

Miss me yet?

hillbillypharmacist: DamnYankees: So am I supposed to think he wants to modify it in a minor way on the tax side, or that he wants to drastically alter this misguided legislation?

Is it that he really thinks it should be modified in a minor way, but of course wants to denigrate the efforts of Democrats, even when he largely agrees with it?

Tada.

xanadian: FTFA: "Too big to fail" is not a market-based concept; it's a government subsidy scheme - of the most inefficient and dangerous kind.

So...socialism, then.

More like National Socialism, if you catch my drift.

What a surprise, Huntsman said something true and reasonable that will get ignored in favor of "9-9-9! I am the 53%!"

No candidate that is even semi-rational about the big issues we are facing will ever receive the Republican nomination this year. Huntsman seems to be running in order to test the idea that there are some kernels of rationality left in the Republican base. Not working out too well for him, now is it? The fact is that most of the saner Republicans have fled to the Democratic Party or become "independents". This is the reason why the Dems have moved to the right while the GOP has lost its grip on sanity. At best, the GOP candidate will be Romney, and only because he has no ethical principles whatsoever and will thus get the backing of big money backers.

heavymetal: When the statement following the term "GOP Presidential Candidate" actually made sense, I pretty much knew it was Huntsman.

Yeah, I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who didn't know it was Huntsman before clicking.

what a dumbass. If he wants to appeal to the base he needs to find a gay uninsured unemployed soldier and piss on him while singing god bless america.

I think the republicans have decided the economy is still too farked up to fix, and any candidate they get elected would get the blame, so they're letting the crazies out until things get better and they can take credit for fixin it.

Republican Solution: MORE DEREGULATION!!! Then magical free market faeries will make it all better. How? SHUT UP YOU SOCIALIST!!! THAT'S HOW!

DamnYankees: I'm just gonna quote Yglesias on this, since he nailed it:

There are four ideas [in Huntsman's op-ed]. The first is to repeal Dodd-Frank's proposed mechanism for resolution of large banks. The second is to do what Dodd-Frank's proposed mechanism for resolution of large banks does. The third was proposed by the Obama administration and killed by the Senate and would only moderately discourage bank consolidation, not eliminate the need to do something when large financial institutions fail. The fourth is a good idea, but would penalize lenders of all sizes and has nothing to do with the ostensible topic at hand.

This is, I think, part of the problem with conservative discourse being so dominated by jeremiads against mythical Obama administration initiatives. What Huntsman wants to do, in essence, is repeal a made up provision of Dodd-Frank in order to replace it with what Dodd-Frank already does, add on something the administration already proposed adding on, and then do an unrelated tax reform. But he insists that he thinks Dodd-Frank is a "tragically" inappropriate response to the financial crisis. So am I supposed to think he wants to modify it in a minor way on the tax side, or that he wants to drastically alter this misguided legislation? There's no way to infer from this op-ed what it is Huntsman is saying he wants to do, which is especially problematic because contrary to myth politicians rarely lie about which initiatives they'll pursue in office. Paying attention to policy proposals is normally a great way to figure out what's happening. But the proposals need to be grounded in some kind of reality-tracking account of what the status quo is.

Whoa now, slow down there. Rational analysis has no place whatsoever in a fark politics thread. Take that shiat to some web site where elitist latte drinkers spend their time.

Bag of Hammers: Miss me yet?

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 374x250]

YES. one of my fav presidents.

xanadian: Who said that? Huntsman?

*rtfa*

Ayup. Too bad he's, like, in last place. :-|

Gary Johnson says hi.

yeah...

But it's the one guy who makes any sense and has yet to submit to the derp brigade.

This will go nowhere

Wouldn't it be neat if someone like Huntsman could be the GOP nominee so I could not vote for him just because he is wrong instead of not voting for a GOP candidate because he is insane?

You know I think he would have a huge chance of winning if he got the nom. Too bad he won't.

The Dog Ate My Homework: Whoa now, slow down there. Rational analysis has no place whatsoever in a fark politics thread. Take that shiat to some web site where elitist latte drinkers spend their time.

Reddit?

The sad thing is that Huntsman just needs a little momentum to get going and then the Republican hivemind will take over. They will support Huntsman because they're told to and then congress will have no choice but to fix something.

/hey look, a unicorn

Corvus: Wouldn't it be neat if someone like Huntsman could be the GOP nominee so I could not vote for him just because he is wrong instead of not voting for a GOP candidate because he is insane?

You know I think he would have a huge chance of winning if he got the nom. Too bad he won't.

Yes, that would be nice. Most importantly, because we might be able to have a genuine debate about what we need to do in this country. Instead, we're just going to get more of the same unhinged bullshiat about birth certificates, electric fences, death panels, and so on.

sprawl15: The Dog Ate My Homework: Whoa now, slow down there. Rational analysis has no place whatsoever in a fark politics thread. Take that shiat to some web site where elitist latte drinkers spend their time.

Reddit?

Do teenagers usually drink lattes?

Break them up. Break them up and prohibit them from consolidating again. It's the only way to be sure.

He's not a real presidential candidate... He has no chance whatsoever to win the GOP nod.

/now then, him as a 3rd party candidate would be interesting
//he'd pull votes from both parties.

sheilanagig: FuturePastNow: [img546.imageshack.us image 640x413]

Break them up. Break them up and prohibit them from consolidating again. It's the only way to be sure.

It's like killing a vampire. You have to make sure you drive the stake through its heart.

Nuke them from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

make me some tea: I would consider voting for him over Obama, actually. The guy seems very sensible. Of course as we found out with Obama, sensible isn't sexy enough to get things done, which is why we have whackjobs in our government.

Don't you think like most Republicans who get in office the other Republicans will force him to do their agenda? He is going to surround himself with mostly Bush aids.

Huntsmen is the only Republican I would even consider switching sides for.

Then again, I was relatively pro-McCain before the 180 he did before the last election.

Mnemia: Yes, that would be nice. Most importantly, because we might be able to have a genuine debate about what we need to do in this country. Instead, we're just going to get more of the same unhinged bullshiat about birth certificates, electric fences, death panels, and so on.

... while the finance industry robs everybody blind and enslaves their children with lifetime debt.

There's a pattern here.

The fact is, yes, those banks _are_ too big to fail. That's the fundamental problem with huge mega-corporations, particularly ones that don't actually add value by making stuff. They're too big to fail, but never too small to not lay people off. Mass firings cut the economy off at the knees.

The solution? I suspect (and cue all sorts of derp to tell me I'm wrong) that only AT&T style breakups of the large banks, investment houses, media conglomerations (for good measure), and certain other megacorps that have portfolios, not business models, coupled with strong legislation to prevent future mass consolidations, will wind up being necessary.

Economies require customers. Customers are employees. Thus, economies require employees. Small/medium businesses employ people and are "hungry" enough to be genuinely innovative. Large/mega companies lay off employees for short term gain, and innovate through osmosis by absorbing small/medium businesses. Ergo, save the economy by carving up the megacorps.

/ And while we're at it, cock punches to the RIAA and MPAA.
// Because socialism.

The housing crisis and everything involved w/ that convoluted mess must be resolved in order to fix the banks.

There's some stimulus jobs for ya'.

Flood the top five largest banks (they all took bailouts) w/ Federal bean counters.

It could take years sorting out who owns what and/or owes what to whom.

MooseUpNorth: The solution? I suspect (and cue all sorts of derp to tell me I'm wrong) that only AT&T style breakups of the large banks, investment houses, media conglomerations (for good measure), and certain other megacorps that have portfolios, not business models, coupled with strong legislation to prevent future mass consolidations, will wind up being necessary.

I completely agree, and came to this conclusion years ago. I believe that this is the only solution that can not only help prevent future problems but also cut the corruption we're experiencing off at the knees. The enforcement of antitrust laws in this country has been dormant for far too long, and I believe that that is one of the real roots of the problems we're having. We should be slicing and dicing many of our megacorps, prohibiting future mergers and acquisitions if the combined companies would be too large, and focusing such enforcement on the financial industries in particular (and I include insurance under that). The reasons we need to do this go far beyond mere economic problems...it's also necessary to safeguard our democracy. Unlimited corporate consolidation leads inevitably to plutocracy, and arguably already has.

BTW, we did exactly this several other times in our history where out of control corporations screwed up our country. It's not like it's an unprecedented and unproven solution, but it will take courage to pull the trigger and do it. We also probably need to reform the antitrust laws so that it's not such a cumbersome and lengthy process to break corporations up: I'd like to see some sort of agency with summary powers to break up "too big to fail" (ie, "too big to exist") banks, for example, without a lengthy judicial appeals process allowed. These bankers need to learn that their organizations only get to exist if we say they can, or problems will continue. Right now, the decades-long court battles in any antitrust case mean that the defendants can just run out the clock until it's beyond irrelevant and the world has moved on (see: Microsoft).

I just hope we're not too late. We may well have already reached a point where the corruption in the system cannot be rooted out without bloodshed or at least drastic measures.

"First, for anyone on the right of the political spectrum who thinks at all about the issues..."


Well, there's your problem.

BTW OWS if BHO was really on your side there would be masses of Federal regulators all up in Wall Streets shiat RIGHT NOW and by all up in their shiat I don't mean hearings or proposed new legislation I mean actual Federal employees looking over actual bank's actual balance sheets.

Start w/ the one w/ "America" in it's name.

Link (new window)

Link (new window)

Link (new window)