Agreed wholeheartedly with every point this article made.
It wasn't enough for the rich to be rich. Human nature being what it is, they had to be super-rich. Or put another way, tax cuts, including the Bush tax cuts, fed some of the worst aspects of human nature and led to some of the worst excesses. It was just a matter of time before Wall Street went wild.
"Financial reform must take into account human nature — investment bankers enjoy being rich(er) — or it will fail."
"BUT, BUT, BUT....,!"
Could hear the REPUBLICANS fussing as I continued reading,
"Clinton this...! Clinton that...!"
Although most with limited vocabulary,
(some even worse than mine)
"HIGH INTEREST RATES and GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS are DISINCENTIVES to INVESTMENTS!"
Crying in unison with their "talking points".
"DEMOCRATS!"
And I hadn't even finished reading the article as the author presented his argument!
Yes, yes, yes,
"YES!"
You are absolutely
"RIGHT!"
"HE"
did excuse
"CLINTON,",
although not Bush or Regan,
from responsibility for their participation in the policy making leading up to the Wall Street Crisis.
The general verdict is that Glass-Steagall worked. Until its repeal in 1999, when President Clinton caved to pressures from Republicans who felt regulation inhibited competition and from Democrats — such as Clinton's own Treasury secretary, Robert (R?)ubin — who felt that the law was a vestige of another era.
Well there it is!
"THEPROOF!"
"Clinton!"
YEP!
(Eyes rolling up into my head)
"Responsible for the Wall Street mess!"
YES HE MOST CERTAINLY DID EXCUSE CLINTON!
American Thinker: The Left's Pied Piper: "Meanwhile, the Republican Party wisely accepted their well-earned title as the Party of No and avoided the stench of the congressional liberal elitists, who believe so strongly in their own ideology that they've willfully ignored the will of the people for their own satisfaction."
dis·in·cen·tive [dis-in-sen-tiv]
–noun
something that discourages or deters; deterrent
"Disincentivizing"
is not a recognized word. Did not catch that until I looked up it's definition to post with this blog.
"IT NEEDS TO BE!"
Assuming person who penned this article is aware not listed, although possibly 'not' at the time of publication, felt the same.
Not necessarily a huge mistake,
if one learns from them.
No comments:
Post a Comment