Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Amy Klobuchar casino analogy

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 » Places » Minnesota Donate to DU
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-26-08 09:34 AM
Original message
Amy Klobuchar casino analogy
http://klobuchar.senate.gov/newsreleases_detail.cfm?id=303566&


“The Administration has allowed Wall Street to operate like a casino and unfortunately Chairman Bernanke and Secretary Paulson have been called in as the house managers in the eleventh hour to shut it down,” said Klobuchar. “As we look at restructuring the proposal to include needed long-term regulations we also need to minimize risks to the taxpayer.”


I disagree with that analogy.

Bush officials don't want to shut down the casino. They want the gamblers to have someone else's money to keep playing.

They aren't trying to ban the sale of mortgage-related securities, for example.

Please write Klobuchar and ask her to vote No on the bailout bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-27-08 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
1. I emailed her office, and I wrote:
Regarding this article on your website:
=======================================
http://klobuchar.senate.gov/newsreleases_detail.cfm?id=303566&

“The Administration has allowed Wall Street to operate like a casino and unfortunately Chairman Bernanke and Secretary Paulson have been called in as the house managers in the eleventh hour to shut it down,” said Klobuchar. “As we look at restructuring the proposal to include needed long-term regulations we also need to minimize risks to the taxpayer.”
=======================================

We need more regulation, but the bailout bill doesn't provide that.

The bailout bill encourages risky behavior by paying firms for their bad investments.

Firms which get billions in public money will make more risky investments with that money.

The Chris Dodd bill does not provide a deterrent with a real cap on executive pay of participating corporations. Instead, it lets Henry Paulson, who made $37 million in 2005, decide if pay is excessive.

This whole bill is a bad idea.

But at very least, the executive compensation of participating corporations should have a real cap, such as not greater than the president of the United States makes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 05:47 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Places » Minnesota 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