Government subsidizing big business

[Fast_Eddie]

I know everyone got bent out of shape about the government bailing out private industry. But we've been doing it for years, really. So what do you guys think - with the "budget crisis" we're facing, should we contiune to provide govermnet subsides for proffitable private industry? Or if they're a private company making loads of money should we let them compete in the free market without any help from the government?

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

I know everyone got bent out of shape about the government bailing out private industry. But we've been doing it for years, really. So what do you guys think - with the "budget crisis" we're facing, should we contiune to provide govermnet subsides for proffitable private industry? Or if they're a private company making loads of money should we let them compete in the free market without any help from the government?

yes BUT we need to look close at any irregularities that cause any melt downs and prosecute.

It is not to late to go back and prosecute the folks responsible for the housing crash either.

[flacaltenn]

NoOneReal:

I need to get one of those "shocked" smiley faces from you for this...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_851289.html

ALEXANDRIA, Va. -- A jury has convicted the majority owner of what had been one of the nation's largest mortgage companies on all 14 counts in a $3 billion fraud trial that officials have said is one of the most significant prosecutions to arise from the nation's financial crisis.

The jury returned its verdict late Tuesday after more than a full day of deliberations.

Prosecutors said Lee Farkas led a fraud scheme of staggering proportions as chairman of Florida-based Taylor Bean & Whitaker. The fraud not only caused the company's 2009 collapse and the loss of jobs for its 2,000 workers, but also contributed to the collapse of Alabama-based Colonial Bank, the sixth-largest bank failure in U.S. history.

Farkas testified in his own defense at the trial and claimed he did nothing wrong.

Sad truth is this guy deserves the conviction but was no where NEAR the cause of the housing meltdown.. There are literally 100's of people looking to bring cases, but here's the truth..

They can't make cases largely because it was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that set the standards for all those shitty mortgage papers in the 1st place.. Yup.. Just another example as to why we expect incompetence and political pandering in the massive bureaucracy.. Study it yourself. Get the quotes from all the frustrated prosecutors. The proximate cause of the housing meltdown was govt pandering and ineptness. And before you point out that it was BUSH who pushed for lower mortgage qualifications, it was Barney Frank who chewed out the regulators and sent them home when they tried to warn the Senate. Bipartisian collusion to distract from a changing economy by pumping up the housing/realestate market....

[flacaltenn]

Fast Eddie:

Go ya one better. Take the Bureau of Weights/Measures out of the Commerce Dept. Put it somewhere else, then CLOSE the rest of the Commerce Dept.. ALL of the rest is corporate welfare. Also take 10% of current ethanol subsidies and redirect to 2nd generation research (non foodstock biofuels). CAN the rest of the subsidies tomorrow..

The only form of subsidy that should be out there from the Feds are Performance Grants for demonstrations of reaching R&D milestones. Like pushing costs lower for Hydrogen generation. Or demonstrating an LED bulb design that beats CFL performance.

More like Contests to push levels of tech achievement towards goals that benefit the collective.

Never consumer tax rebates or corporate welfare for products that are currently on the market.. like Chevy Volts or curly light bulbs or attic insulation. THat's just assinine... Why should a company continue to get Fed tax subsidies for a product that EXISTS?

Either folks buy that product, or the Feds can knock themselves out (if they want the product to succeed) by "seeding" a demonstration to fix the consumer rejection issues..

[Fast_Eddie]

Interesting ideas, but hang on just a second. You can't go me one better yet. I was just asking a question. Should we continue to subsidize profitable private companies?

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

Fast Eddie:

Go ya one better. Take the Bureau of Weights/Measures out of the Commerce Dept. Put it somewhere else, then CLOSE the rest of the Commerce Dept.. ALL of the rest is corporate welfare. Also take 10% of current ethanol subsidies and redirect to 2nd generation research (non foodstock biofuels). CAN the rest of the subsidies tomorrow..

The only form of subsidy that should be out there from the Feds are Performance Grants for demonstrations of reaching R&D milestones. Like pushing costs lower for Hydrogen generation. Or demonstrating an LED bulb design that beats CFL performance.

More like Contests to push levels of tech achievement towards goals that benefit the collective.

Never consumer tax rebates or corporate welfare for products that are currently on the market.. like Chevy Volts or curly light bulbs or attic insulation. THat's just assinine... Why should a company continue to get Fed tax subsidies for a product that EXISTS?

Either folks buy that product, or the Feds can knock themselves out (if they want the product to succeed) by "seeding" a demonstration to fix the consumer rejection issues..

I'm not sure I understand the seeding concept. It might be an answer to my question. I see some of those subsidies as ways to support a goal other then building the industry. I am sold on the idea of CFDs, although I wasn't aware of a rebate when we replaced 90% of our bulbs with them. Over the last few years, I have seen the reduction in energy consumption. If it is a worthwhile national goal to reduce energy usage, and a rebate is necessary/effective to overcome inertia and get people to move, isn't it worthwhile to provide that motivation even if it provides and ancillary benefit to the industry?

BTW, I am with you on the ethanol subsidies, because it's quite possible that the behavior being encouraged is actually detrimental to the collective interest.

Regards,

D-Ray

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

I know everyone got bent out of shape about the government bailing out private industry. But we've been doing it for years, really. So what do you guys think - with the "budget crisis" we're facing, should we contiune to provide govermnet subsides for proffitable private industry? Or if they're a private company making loads of money should we let them compete in the free market without any help from the government?

Eddie, good to see you back.

To respond: just say no to corporate welfare.

Regards,

D-Ray

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

NoOneReal:

I need to get one of those "shocked" smiley faces from you for this...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_851289.html



Sad truth is this guy deserves the conviction but was no where NEAR the cause of the housing meltdown.. There are literally 100's of people looking to bring cases, but here's the truth..

They can't make cases largely because it was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that set the standards for all those shitty mortgage papers in the 1st place.. Yup.. Just another example as to why we expect incompetence and political pandering in the massive bureaucracy.. Study it yourself. Get the quotes from all the frustrated prosecutors. The proximate cause of the housing meltdown was govt pandering and ineptness. And before you point out that it was BUSH who pushed for lower mortgage qualifications, it was Barney Frank who chewed out the regulators and sent them home when they tried to warn the Senate. Bipartisian collusion to distract from a changing economy by pumping up the housing/realestate market....

The Feds can't prosecute because they still don't understand the damned derivatives.

But honest even the mortgage broker who only made $500,000 are year or less broke every law in the book and no one is even looking at them

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Eddie, good to see you back.

To respond: just say no to corporate welfare.

Regards,

D-Ray

Thanks D Man. Not sure if it's good that I'm kicking back in here or not. Usually means I'm more stressed out and opinionated than usual. Meh. Better to scrap with you guys than kick the dog.

And DING DING DING. You got the "right" answer.

It's another one of my trick set ups. We just had to sit though all that BS about "we gots no munah!" So we have to cut NPR and Planned Parenthood. Nice. But what do you know? We decided we COULD afford the $53 BILLION in oil subsidies.

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_195764.asp

If anyone thinks these Tea Hatters are any different than anyone else with an "R" after their name I hope that cleared things up. It's amazing that the "tough decisions" that have to be made just happen to be all the same penny ante "social agenda" crap that the Tea Hatters swore up and down they weren't going to get behind.

Here's a shock. They lied.

As my good buddy Bill used to say:

'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.

No, no, this is different! This is NEW Coke. We spell it Koch now!

Wow, I'm hot tonight!

[Fast_Eddie]

Oh, and I'll tell you why. None of them will do something that matters because it would do what we have needed to do for years - put gas prices where the free market puts them, you know, like all the other countries in the world. If we did that, we'd get smaller, more efficient cars. Shoot, if it gets bad enough people might have to move back into the cities! Yes, with the POOR people! Gasp! And take a "bus" to work. Oh my. Now that would be the end of the American Dream! And if we quit using so much oil, what would we use to justify the wars? You know what that means- no wars, no jawbs!