Actually, it was really just caused by two things: 1) the FED and artificial interest rates. 2) extremely loose lending, which wasn't even a deregulation issue. It was mainly just lenders changing their risk tolerance cause they believed they couldn't lose. I don't believe Wall St is overly culpable in this as all they did was invest too heavily in these crappy securities. They've been leveraged to the hilt in other areas throughout time (FX being a biggy, and junk bonds in the 80's). Although being that leveraged is stupid, I don't put the blame with them for two reasons.First, they were not the ones that caused these securities to turn to shit. Blame the FED for that one more than anyone else. More importantly, someone had to buy these bundled securities, and there were so many of them that Wall St was really the only place they could go. The problem is that too many were created in the first place. Too many people were encouraged to buy homes that they should not have. That said, I do not believe Wall St deserves a public bailout. Kill mark to market, and give them low interest loans. That will release hundreds of billions, and immediately improve balance sheets dramatically.
Conde Nast Portfolio magazine ran an article in support of a transaction tax last month. You can read it and comment on it at the link below, as I already have. If you are going to comment please make it intelligent with actual points as to why this won't work. Avoid childish posts. http://www.portfolio.com/views/columns/wall-street/2008/09/18/Advocating-Tax-on-Stock-Trading
I feel your pain. I don't see eye to eye with the Republicans much of the time either, although I would disagree with your point about religious bigots. Anyway, I usually vote Republican as a "lesser of two evils" kind of thing. I just happen to place individual freedom and responsibility as my #1 issue, which the Dems tend to be against most of the time. If the Republicans would get back to conservatism, at least on economic and foreign policy issues, I would be much happier. Unfortunately, economically they are about as bad as Dems, spending way more than they should and proposing borrowing, rather than taxation as the means to do so. At the end of the day, economic prosperity is the key issue and I believe that low taxes, less government intrusion, lower spending, individual freedom, etc are the best paths towards prosperity.
the article does make a case for bringing back the tax but if you read towards the end of the article common sense prevails by stating this tax would stop evolution and efficiency bascially taking backward steps. the cost of doing business in the us would become more expensive, off shore business would grow thus taking productivity out of the us. if short term trading is so bad for pricing how come the markets did rally over the last few years during the major bull run. bottom line is earnings drive markets and they drive it both ways, specualtors are not gonna get in front of a moving train and be able to stop it.
The fact is, ANY tax, is redirecting money from "the people" (including private enteprise) and giving it to the government. Money isn't just created out of thin air, so it is taken out of the economy and put into the hand of the politicians in this case. SOME of that money will be used to benefit "the people", but much of it will be wasted, as we've seen before with government spending. So, if you believe that the government is a better steward for money than you or I, then you should be favorable to tax increases. I happen to believe that 95% of the time, you and I are better stewards of our own money than the goverment would be, so I am against tax increases. The only tax increase that I would be happy to pay, would be to directly pay down our national debt, but obviously that is just a fantasy that will never happen.
I believe that our debt problem will be such a burden that when the republicans arise again (they are dead now), they will go back to fiscal conservatism, and really practice it this time. If not, a third party with fiscal responsibility, but moderation in taxation as their central platform will arise.
I agree that they are pretty dead right now, due to getting away from what makes them attrative in the first place. Reps. that are Dem-lite's will never be around long. They just can't out-Democrat a Democrat at the end of the day. BUT, if they get back on point, they will certainly emerge once again. Recently we've seen a few signs of life out of them, bucking the Bush/quasi-socialist agenda and getting back to basics. I feel like long-term, maybe the best thing that can happen to Republicans is for Obama to win and the Dems to continue to control both houses. After a few years of Obama with a Dem congress, and spending, tax and debt out of control, the country will be ripe for a conservative revolution.
From my understanding, it's not in the Senate's bill. This is just something that DeFazio is pushing in the House. If the Senate bill passes through the House, then I think we're in the clear for now. I don't think the House will decide to vote down the bill again after the flood of calls after the first time they voted it down. But, who knows for sure. I think it's probably just for show right now by DeFazio and his group to show constituents they're being as tough.