You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #15: Well, I did bring that up in my OP. FrenchieCat take note: [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #10
15. Well, I did bring that up in my OP. FrenchieCat take note:
While FC's posts provide some good insight, I don't really see the need to belittle other DUers for not offering up their comprehensive solutions. It's kind of above and beyond the purview of a DU discussion thread.

I don't deny that G-S would have to be strongly updated, never said otherwise. In fact, it's what I alluded to in my second paragraph; of course things are different now, as a very result of the repeal of G-S. But much of what G-S did worked and could work again. I don't see why it has to be prohibitively complicated to start with the basic framework of the old law and add to it, update it and modify to address all the new hocus-pocus financial instruments which arose from deregulation of the industry. If it means we have to tell Goldman Sachs or Citi that they'll have to shut down divisions and/or get out of certain businesses, so be it.

This is where I part ways with Frenchie; it isn't any more helpful for you to call out DUers who are upset with Obama than it is for those DUers to post without offering a solution of their own. In each of those angry posts, there are truths which cannot be overlooked. Just because they don't actually answer the problem, they provide background and insight as to why people are so upset, and why the same old Washington pols are likely to screw us over once again as they protect the people who pay their bills.

I believe this is part of why the GOP keeps calling for "incremental reform" and "starting over." They're actually afraid of a comprehensive, sweeping bill because it might actually DO SOMETHING. For instance, the way I see it, we should throw Campaign Finance and Lobbying Reform into the mix, because as long as these guys are getting bankrolled by the people they're supposed to be regulating, very little will change. So fuck "incremental." Go huge. Do it large, address the real issues and not just the sound bites. Reform can't stop at Wall Street, it must include K-Street to be truly effective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC