I don't do this very often, but I think I'll clarify a post I put up last Friday. My one reader in the world seems to have gotten the impression that I was defending John Corzine, the former Democrat Senator who "lost" a million billion dollars of investor money. At first I thought, you can read this and think I'm pro-Corzine? But I've said it before, sarcasm is a terrible way to communicate ideas, especially in an environment when people think their political opponents are literally insane.
So, again - actually I think Corzine is at best a wildly incompetent manager, but more likely a guy who just stole a million billion dollars of his investors money. And I was using his situation to make a point that there is little, if anything, in current Republican thinking to stop a guy like him. They're against regulations (they want far less of them) they're against enforcement of regulations (always pushing for less money to inspectors and watchdogs) and as far as I can tell, they simply want the free market to take care of charlatans like him. He took your life savings? Don't invest with HIM next time!
Political affiliation aside, what would Republicans do to prevent the next Corzine from ruining his investors' lives?
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
This Time In English
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
"A million"? You might want to have your crack fact-checking staff look into that.
I know it's easier to just make fun of Fox News when they toss up a bad graphic (I wonder if any other channel has ever had a bad graphic, or does it just happen to Fox? But I digress) than it is to get things correct yourself.
In answer to your question, I'll ask you the same one in a different way: There are laws on the books against pedophillia, yet Jerry Sandusky (the former Penn State Asst Coach) molested many, many, young boys over an extended period of time. What can be done to prevent the "next" Jerry Sandusky from molesting/abusing/raping young boys?
You tell me, sir.
Short answer: You can't prevent 100% of criminal and/or bad behavior.
Write the strongest laws you can, then enforce them. After being found guilty, make the punishment more severe than the "reward", and you'll have less bad behavior.
Okay then! That's what we're doing now. Problem solved.
Really? WSe are doing those types of things now?
How many years in prison did Geithner get for not paying his taxes? What kind of fine did he have to pay?
How about Daschle? How many years did he get? His fine?
This is s aplendid time to ask you how you feel about Rupert Murdoch, currently being investigated for widespread cellphone hacking in his various organizations.
Has he been convicted of anything yet?
If he has, I hope he is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
What do you think should have been done to self-admitted tax dodgers like Geithner and Daschle?
Well Geithner should have been forced to pay the delinquent tax bills with interest. Since he was, I guess that worked out okay. Daschle bears looking into but it's not a priority since he withdrew himself from public office. If he's found guilty of tax evasion, I hope he is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
And this brings us full circle back to the root problem, cronyism. Neither any Republicans or Democrats have gone after Geithener or Daschle for tax evasion (at a time when the Country needs every penny it is supposed to receive). Why? Because then they would be going after one of their own "fraternity" members, and those relationships are stronger than Party lines.
Precisely why we need term limits on D.C. jobs.
There are term limits on Congress AND the Presidency and it hasn't stopped cronyism.
Really? There are term limits in Congress? For all States? How long can a Congressman and a Senator serve before they are required by law to retire?
I just don't think term limits are the answer. Geithner, for example, is a crony who was appointed by a guy with term limits.
Earlier you said there are term limits for Congress. Are you still standing by that claim?
Geithner had to get approved by Congress, didn't he? Perhaps if there were term limits, the cronyism would not have been as much of a factor?
SOME states term limit their congressmen. Mine, for example. I think.
In any event this is an interesting argument you're making. The problem with cronyism isn't they guy who APPOINTS the crony, it's the people who approve him. And the solution isn't really to hamstring those people, it's to limit the choice of the American voter on whether they want to keep THOSE people in office.
Post a Comment