Welfare For Wall Street


Still, you might argue that we have a free-market economy, and it’s up to the private sector to decide how much its employees are worth. But this brings me to my second point: Wall Street is no longer, in any real sense, part of the private sector. It’s a ward of the state, every bit as dependent on government aid as recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, a k a “welfare.”

But we need those Masters of The Universe, Krugman! Get with the program!

Speaking for me only

< The War On Pelosi And Harman: It's About Torture | "Moderates" Cut Spending On Pandemic Flu Preparedness >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Another day.... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by KoolJeffrey on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 12:10:04 PM EST
    ...another disappointment. This country is screwed. There is no hope. Big time lobbyists have done it again. This recession will be with us long after Obama is defeated in 2012, and when President Romney takes office, he will face the largest deficit in the history of mankind.

    This quote is just another example (1.50 / 2) (#4)
    by Green26 on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 11:05:15 AM EST
    showing how dumb and biased Krugman is on this general subject:

    "Wall Street is no longer, in any real sense, part of the private sector. It's a ward of the state, every bit as dependent on government aid as recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, a k a "welfare."

    You owe me an apology too. (1.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Green26 on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 05:08:46 PM EST
    All of Wall St. hasn't received TARP funds.

    Some that received TARP funds didn't need or even want them.

    Silly comparison between a welfare receipient receiving welfare and a financial institution (let alone all of Wall St) receiving government funds--at least for most of the institutions.

    Wall St is no longer part of the private sector.

    Krugman is wrong on all of those statements.

    Krugman is too biased on this issue, to even be credible.

    I think it's funny how some on this board can't make a move without looking to see if Krugman agrees with it.

    We are at a point (none / 0) (#1)
    by Coral on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 09:48:05 AM EST
    where only Brecht or Dickens could do this justice.

    A nice "companion" (none / 0) (#2)
    by KeysDan on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 10:11:22 AM EST
    article in the NYT on Tim Geithner--his hubris in feeling that he could not be co-opted when president of the NY Fed just because he was cozy with the bankers he was supposedly regulating (tennis playing, dining at their clubs, the Four Season's, private dining rooms, and homes).  No arms-length stuff for him. And, he is a great leader, too.  Just because he has billions of free money to give.  It seems, to me, Geithner is enamored too much by rich men.

    everyone in America is too enamored with (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by of1000Kings on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 12:16:16 PM EST
    the rich man...

    especially the rich men who do nothing productive for society...


    There's "Chatter" out there that (none / 0) (#3)
    by SOS on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 10:30:48 AM EST
    Obama has gone along with all the TARPing and PPIPing because it was tactically the only way that he could give the Wall Street plutocrats enough rope to hang themselves.

    the stealing just continues (none / 0) (#5)
    by S on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 11:09:20 AM EST
    bottom line...the stealing just continues...the foxes in charge of the fall continue to keep their jobs and get incredible bonusus...and the taxpayers continue to be the suckers, lose their jobs, still pay highter credit card interest rates and our country falls deeper in debt for them to pass on to their children

    ...where's the change?  this article on Tim G does not instill any confidence

    as someone else commented...this is like legalized embezzelment...pathetic...

    ...and in the meantime while this is going on our headlines are filled with distractions...

    Krugman's Right... (none / 0) (#6)
    by santarita on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 11:10:51 AM EST
    to complain.

    It's now up to the Obama Administration and Congress to propose and enact legislation that will place appropriate curbs on excessive compensation, whether it be through taxation or outright restrictions.

    For too long many companies have been run with the goal of maximizing short term gains at the expense of long term growth and stability because compensation has been measured based on the short term.  

    My solution is different (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 11:17:25 AM EST
    Let them pay them what they want, WITH THEIR MONEY!!

    But not with our money.


    fat chance... (none / 0) (#9)
    by S on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 11:39:48 AM EST
    i hate to be cynical...but fat chance the dems are going to impose any real restrictions or curb salaries when the banks and firms in question are lobbying the dems  - including the congressional dems - and donating large sums to them...there was an article out last week that indicated most of the donations from banks, etc are going to dems now...
    I even read that lobbying efforts have even used TARP $$$

    greed knows no party affiliation...

    for there to be real change, Obama would need to use people like Krugman, Eliabeth Warren, maybe Professor Mirci (sp)...Obama has not made a clean break from the source of the problems...he is just moving forward with the same people and variables in place


    I'm skeptical rather than... (none / 0) (#10)
    by santarita on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 11:54:29 AM EST
    cynical.  I've not given up hope that Obama and Congress will end up doing the right thing, or at least sort of the right thing.  

    Thread cleaned of name-calling (none / 0) (#18)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 11:55:46 PM EST
    You may not engage in name-calling or personal attacks here.