Mr. Sohl highlights the distastefulness of Republican efforts to stoke our fear of the other to win elections. He also notes new data that shows that Republican freak-outs over illegal immigration may not provide a winning issue against President Obama. A new report from the Pew Hispanic Center finds that since 2007, the number of illegal Mexican immigrants in the U.S. has declined 15% from 7 million to 6.1 million.
The recession has accounted for much of that change, but so have decreasing birth rates among Mexicans. Worth noting, however, is the fact that the economic downturn has not descreased legal immigration: from 2007 to 2011, the number of legal Mexican immigrants in the U.S. increased from 5.6 million to 5.8 million. Still, the total Mexican-born population in the United States has dropped for the first time since the Depression.
This change in immigration changes leaves our Border Patrol agents less busy than they've been in four decades:
In spite of (and perhaps because of) increases in the number of U.S. Border Patrol agents, apprehensions of Mexicans trying to cross the border illegally have plummeted in recent years—from more than 1 million in 2005 to 286,000 in 2011—a likely indication that fewer unauthorized migrants are trying to cross. Border Patrol apprehensions of all unauthorized immigrants are now at their lowest level since 1971 [Jeffrey Passel, D'Vera Cohn, and Ana Gonzalez-Barrera, "Net Migration from Mexico Falls to Zero—and Perhaps Less," Pew Hispanic Center, 2012].
We are deporting Mexican illegal immigrants at records levels: the Obama Administration deported 282,000 in 2010.
The net result of these economic, demographic, and policy changes: after seeing the number of illegal Mexican immigrants surge above the number of legal Mexican immigrants in 2002 and stay above that level throughout the Bush Administration, the Obama Administration is seeing the number of illegals return to parity with the number of legals. That trendline shows that we can add illegal immigration enforcement to the list of Obama Administration policies that appear to be working.
Update 06:54 MDT: Interestingly, I just heard an immigration expert on the Marketplace Morning Report contend that militarizing the border during the Bush Administration actually increased the illegal immigrant population here, since illegals found it more difficult to head back home to Mexico.
Cory,
In your desire to justify the reelection of Obama, you are connecting cause and effect where there is none. Two examples:
1) More domestic oil production: Because of the time required to bring oil production online, this increased production is related to decisions of the Bush administration. NONE of the new sources of oil are the result of permits granted by the Obama Administration.
2) Decline of illegals: This is the direct result of the recession and not because of any policy change or enforcement of the Obama Administration. Because of the excess legal job applicants, job opportunities for illegals are down. No job. No reason to stay in the US.
What you should be promoting are the following "accomplishments" of the Obama administration:
1) Stimulus that didn't stimulate.
2) Obamacare that will decrease quality of care.
3) Dodd-Frank financial reform which made the "too big to fail" banks bigger and decreased business and consumer access to loans.
4) HAFA which made the housing depression worse and longer
5) Three years of not getting a budget passed through Congress
6) Larger deficit spending in three years than Bush did in 8 years.
Troy: you are one of a handful of ppl who knows that the US is under continual siege as a result of W's foreign policy and that President Obama has no choice but react. A cheap dollar is just one way to repel unwanted inbound workers and keep exports moving.
A return to a Romney/Sarkozy economy is retrograde.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/04/romney-hints-at-radical-health-care-reform-plan-to-replace-obamacare.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
The quality of life in the US has deteriorated so much that immigrants don't find this country appealing anymore. Mission accomplished!
Larry,
As one who does not support nation building as a national objective, I did not and do not support the American policies in:
Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt.
I also do not support the current strategies in Iran or North Korea. I am undecided on Syria (mostly because I suspect there is latent nation building there as well but also because I'm not sure I understand the Syria strategy.
Back to immigration, I see why good buddy Troy wants to change the subject here.
Romney is a one man train wreck on this issue and everybody knows it.
Mitt will lose first and formost because Latinos and their friends will stay away from him in droves.
Mitt has done two things that will energize voters against him:
1. Insult women and
2. Insult Latinos.
Neither group will be quick to forgive, especially if he never even tries to explain himself. He's even at odds with all but the most extreme right of his own camp on these issues.
His saving grace may be that no one believes anything he says anymore anyway.
Nation-building needs to happen in the US: how weird that this interested party believes in empire building as the solution and that the GOP doesn't know how to do it without killing people.
Cory,
In Troy's effort to make President Obama a one term president, he has resorted to a few lies and half truths...
1. He says the stimulus didn't stimulate. It did and I thought Troy was smarter than to just listen to dis proven talking points. A quick peruse through Politifact shows just what partisan hackery this is.
http://www.politifact.com/subjects/stimulus/
2) Obamacare that will decrease quality of care. Troy knows that most of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has not been implemented. Of course he chooses to ignore proven benefits of the parts that have been implemented. Troy can check the truthfulness of his talking point belief structure here (34 pages of political lies debunked)
http://www.politifact.com/subjects/health-care/?page=1
Heck, it was modeled around Heritage Foundation ideas and the RomneyCare plan...so how has that worked out?
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2012/April/12/different-takes-nicholas.aspx
#'s 3 and 4 are obviously not perfect pieces of legislation, but they were grounded in the fact that there were abuses that caused the recession that needed to be addressed.
5) Three years of not getting a budget passed through Congress. Troy knows better than most the dance of the legislation when it comes to this matter and the finger points back to the do-nothing Congress. Another lie from Troy.
But, I'm almost certain this is just another Mitt Romney talking point substituting for thought.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/apr/06/mitt-romney/romney-says-obama-failed-pass-budget/
6) Larger deficit spending in three years than Bush did in 8 years. Oh please Troy, this is your most intellectually dishonest and misleading statement. But you deserve to be "hoist with one's own petard."
Maybe Troy can tell us how much of the Bush tax cuts, Bush Medicare Part D and two off the books wars are made up in that deficit.
Of course on an earlier discussion where Bill brought this up, Troy chose to ignore the facts so I don't see him jumping in to correct himself.
Good discussion though Troy.
Pew Research data and SD. South Dakota increased Hispanic immigration by 103% 2000-2010 per US 2010 census. US Immigration increased 1.6% 2009 to 2010. Primary reasons in 2009 for Mexican immigration to US was due to Crime and Economy in Mexico. Found current US Dept of State Travel Advisory interesting read. Hispanic and Asian jobs are rebounding faster than other immigrant populations. Might be interesting to see politics between Hispanic US Citizens and current legal and illegal Hispanic Immigrants but did not see much data on that topic for SD or border states. I like the work visa process used by some in my area but dislike indentured servitude approach of others. I like it that ICE is focusing on criminal aliens, but that still leaves us with an interesting situation for illegal families with legal children or legal work visa families with illegal status children.
Still looking for SD data...but will probably postpone search for today's oral arguments before US Supreme Court on Arizona Immigration to generate more discussion on immigration topic.
Russell Pearce, the Arizona earth hater legislator who wrote the ALEC-inspired bill is going down in flames:
http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=d8c950fe98990a53057f638dc7d9926b
Supports the idea the accomplishment is independent of Obama.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303459004577362211298534158.html?mod=djemTAR_h
This said, I will praise this administration for the increases in deportations.
Regarding Bill's comment, it is obvious the election is upon us as it is "spin" all the time. :)
Romney has a moderate record and position quite similar to Obama. The difference is rhetoric. Romney's rhetoric appeals to those who desire more than a enforced border but aggressive deportation policies. Obama's rhetoric appeals to those whose focus is amnesty for even illegals.
Cory,
What Troy should be promoting are the economic “accomplishments†of the previous Republican administrations. Especially in three key historical indices. Unemployment, GDP and the Dow Jones.
Unemployment:
-Truman left Ike 2.5% and Ike took it to 6.5
-Kennedy/Johnson left 3.5% to Nixon/Ford and he took it to 7.5%
-Carter ended at 7.2% and Reagan/Bush I left it at 7.2%
-Clinton started with 7.2% and handed off a 4.2% to Bush II
-Bush II ended at 7.6% (which was in the process of hemorrhaging) to Obama.
Let's look at GDP growth
- Truman +3.8% growth
- Kennedy/Johnson 4.8% growth
- Nixon/Ford 2.8% growth
- Carter 3.3 % growth
- Reagan 3.4% growth
- Bush I 2.1% growth
- Clinton 3.7% growth
- Bush II 2.2% growth
How about investment in America as seen through the DOW Jones index.
- Herbert Hoover -90% (the Republican inspired depression)
- FDR/Truman +525%
- Eisenhower +120%
- Kennedy/Johnson +51%
- Nixon/Ford +2%
- Carter +3% (Carter economy outperformed Nixon/Ford)
- Reagan/Bush +244
- Clinton +264
- Bush II -25% (that's the first negative # since Hoover)
- Obama started at 7600 and today it is above 1300...that's a 3 year increase of +80%
Tell us the story again Troy on how Republican president's economies are so much better for the country than those under Democratic presidents.
(full disclosure, I had copied these figures from a source from a source that I can't give full attribution to or remember.)
Not really spin, Troy:
http://www.npr.org/2012/04/23/151178322/immigration-remains-a-dicey-issue-for-romney-gop
Excerpt:
"The way the party ... talks about immigration is going to impact the future course of this party and the future course of this nation," said former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the first Hispanic to hold the nation's highest law enforcement post.
Gonzales didn't mention any candidate by name, but during the Republican primaries, none staked out a tougher position on immigration than former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
"Of course we build a fence, and of course we do not give in-state tuition credits to people who come here illegally," Romney said at a debate in Tampa last year. "That only attracts people to come here and take advantage of America's great beneficence."
In another debate, Romney touted his 2006 agreement with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency to allow Massachusetts State Police troopers to enforce immigration laws to, as he put it, "make sure those people who we arrest are put in jail, to find out they're here illegally, we're going to get them out of here."
It might be a position designed to win votes in Republican primaries, but it hurts the party in the long run, Gonzales said in an interview with NPR.
"Anything you say, any campaign position you take, there are going to be consequences," he said. "I think given the current trajectory, if there's not a change in course, the consequences are not going to be good ones for a Romney presidency, at least with respect to Hispanic votes."
...and the part Troy is talking about:
Citing a recent survey from Quinnipiac, Kobach says that among independent voters, 48 percent favor Romney's position on immigration versus 33 percent who favor President Obama's position on immigration.
"Clearly he's winning with Independent voters by taking a law enforcement-oriented approach, and independent voters will decide who becomes president in the fall," Kobach says.
...
My point is, if you lose the Latino vote, a little margin among Indies on that one issue isn't going to be enough to compensate for it.
Jana,
It can be illuminating to look at macro information but it has to be looked at in light of circumstances as well and then trace the results to concrete policies which impacted these numbers. Another matter is where we were in the natural business cycle which is independent of policies.
FDR: Inherited a tough situation, little positive impact until the War started. FDR should be praised for the prosecution of the war but there is substantial debate with regard to his economic stewardship. I think some good and some not so good.
Truman: Penalized because he came into office at the peak of a business cycle.
Ike: You don't have his numbers. But, he probably benefitted as America assumed economic leadership in the world because of the results of the war.
Kennedy: Pursued great economic policies. Johnson lost focus ala GHWB because of being a war President.
Nixon/Ford: Impacted by the oil crisis. Price controls were bad. Export efforts good.
Carter: His direct polices were not good for the economy. However, his Fed Reserve Chairman pursued policies which aided Reagan's success.
Reagan: Righted a wandering ship but by 1986 lost focus.
GHWB: See Johnson
Clinton: He pursued many good economic policies. And, contrary to Obama, he and Reagan ran government better (management perspective) better than anyone in my lifetime.
GWB: Came to office during a business cycle peak, bore 9-11. To his negative, pursued and focused on being a war president. Left office at the end of a business cycle he and the Dem Congress pursued policies to prolong the natural downturn making the meltdown worse than it should have been.
BO: Pursued policies I predicted would be counter-productive and got the results I predicted: The longest recession since the Depression. And, despite coming to office at the trough of a business cycle, it has not gotten materially better. We have never had this anemic growth since the Depression after a trough or had a recession that has lasted four years. In fact, it is the longest by about 2.5 years.
BO
Bill,
You are right. While Romney's political calculation might be good (I think) or not (you think) or vice versa on Obama, in the end, there is a political fight going on that I don't think contributes to a right solution.
Neither Romney or Obama should be proud. And, I hope you recognize that regardless of the political calculation.
"Right now, RCP has 18 states plus the District of Columbia likely to vote for Obama or leaning to him. It also lists 21 states as likely or leaning for Romney. The problem for Romney is that his states are worth only 170 electoral votes, while Obama's are worth 227." NPR.
Yes, Troy, I do believe we agree on that. Neither party is being realistic/responsible/humanitarian about the immigration issue.
Troy, good observations, but you left out the sun was in my eyes, there was a hole in my glove, my alarm didn't go off, the traffic was bad, the dog ate my homework, but he said, I had other stuff come up ...etc.
The half century old track record does not hold up well for Republicans.
So what did Reagan and Clinton have in common? A willingness to compromise and work productively across the aisle.
Think we'll ever see that again?
Senate Republican refuse to show up for Senate hearings on immigration debate. That's the spirit gang!
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/04/senate-gop-boycotts-hearing-on-ariz-immigration-law.php
No. 3 Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer (NY), the party’s leader on messaging, said it was “telling†Republicans were absent. “They can’t defend the law and they don’t want to be tied to it,†he said at the hearing. “They were absent from this hearing just like they’ve been absent from every attempt to negotiate a comprehensive solution to our immigration problem.â€
So... there are about as many illegal Mexican-born immigrants in the US as there are people in South Dakota and Minnesota combined... and for every Mexican-born immigrant who came here through the proper channels, there's at least one who got here by other means. That's illuminating.
Let me just mention here something that never seems to be mentioned when discussing illegal immigration. Does anyone here actually know what it takes to become a legal immigrant to the United States? I'm guessing not.
It's significantly more than "knowing the Constitution" or whatever it is they teach you in school.
First off, it costs thousands of dollars to file the necessary paperwork, any part of which can be rejected for any tiny error, at which point the immigrant needs to pay the same thousands of dollars again. In fact, your chances of getting in are very low without a lawyer, and still not guaranteed by any means.
However, you can also be approved without your paperwork being 100% correct. What it is, really, is a system in which the government is free to cherry-pick who gets in, when. Immigrants from first-world countries very seldom have any problems with immigration. Immigrants from South/Central America have a hell of a time getting in.
That's even if immigrants from poorer countries can afford the paperwork. A person I know has spent much, much more than $20,000 on paperwork alone, and has still been denied. Do you have $20,000 to drop on paperwork? Would you if you made 10 cents a day?
So, before spouting opinions on illegal immigrants (I'm sure there will be dozens more once we hear more about AZ), be sure you understand that it isn't just a matter of choosing not to become a citizen. I doubt there are many who wouldn't jump at the chance to pay taxes, if it meant they got to be citizens.
WayneB... and that ain't the half of it.
Statehood for Mexico.
Carter, many if not most ARE paying taxes anyway. Various sales taxes for sure, and for many, SS, Medicare and even State and Federal income taxes as well.
Quite true. Which is why the common argument about illegals leeching off the poor, downtrodden US citizens is so ridiculous (there are dozens of reasons why that argument is ridiculous, actually).
In fact, there is zero reason Republicans shouldn't love illegals. They come here, make almost no money (90% of which they send back home to Mexico), don't ask for any social services, pay their own way, and rarely complain about how they're treated. Are they not the ideal proletarians?
Some data on illegals paying SS and Medicare taxes: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2017113852_immigtaxes29.html
Also here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/09/AR2010090902874.html
"I just heard an immigration expert on the Marketplace Morning Report contend that militarizing the border during the Bush Administration actually increased the illegal immigrant population here, since illegals found it more difficult to head back home to Mexico."
So the real reason why the numbers are down is that the Obama administration has made it easier to cross our borders undetected. What does that say about the danger of illegal muslims intent on blowing America up?
And Jana thanks for showing that is does not matter what socialist president we have in DC. So Romney or Obama...who cares, they are both socialists.
Yes, Steve. Getting across the border is super-easy under Obama. The fact that we had 11,000 border patrol agents in 2004, and something like 60,000 today, and that border patrol agents have killed between 8 and 18 Mexican immigrants in the past few years certainly indicate ease of border crossing.
If anything is contributing to illegal Muslims intent on blowing America up, it's the violent nationalism Conservatives support, not the Muslims' ability to cruise on over the Mexican border.
Looks like South Dakota Republicans have worked hard at bringing immigrants in to take on the low paying jobs.
103%...???
We are actually good at this!
How much is tied to the tourism industry? Are we displacing local jobs in favor of lower paid immigrant workers at eh expense of good paying jobs for South Dakota taxpayers?
Troy...so are you really saying that the Republican bred Great Depression was just a "tough situation?"
The total economic devastation of families, towns, cities and states was a "tough situation?"
And having cancer is just feeling a little under the weather.
"In fact, there is zero reason Republicans shouldn’t love illegals. They come here, make almost no money (90% of which they send back home to Mexico), don’t ask for any social services, pay their own way, and rarely complain about how they’re treated. Are they not the ideal proletarians?"
CBS News this evening had on an illegal alien Mexican woman here for 4 years with her 4 children because one needed special medical attention. She still could not speak English.
If illegal Mexican aliens send 90% of their earnings back to Mexico, they can't be paying US taxes. Also, if they send anything close to that back to Mexico, they are helping destroy the US economy in two ways. Working for slave wages and shipping money out of the US so that it does nothing for the US economy.
An illegal alien apologist group was presenting the wonderful economic benefits of illegal Mexican aliens and noted how much they paid in bank fees for money transfers to Mexico. Working backward indicated that what they sent back to Mexico exceeded the claimed economic benefit.
Pregnant Mexican women come across the border in such numbers that hospitals near the border have been bankrupted.
Cesar Chavez mural employs 5500 dominoes: boingboing.
Steve: jailers check 'christian' more often than any other religion after booking.
Doh!
http://boingboing.net/2012/04/24/cesar-chavez-mural-made-of-550.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
"it’s the violent nationalism Conservatives support"
You are confusing Conservatives with Neo-Cons...those that McGovern chased out of the Democrat Party.
Donald,
This Republican opposes exploitation. The exploitation in my mind is more evil than what the illegals do by coming here illegally (not that I am condoning crossing the border illegally but just putting it in perspective ).
Jana,
Hoover might have been a Republican but not my kind. He can fully be held responsible for the depth of the Depression. I did left him out because I consider the reorganization of policies among the parties occurred with the election of FDR. Before that there were principles held by one party now held by the other.
For instance, in Hoovers time the GOP were the protectionist and the Dems the free traders. It is reversed now. (Incidentally, one of the causes of the Depression was Smoot Hartley's protectionist law).
P.S. Jana,
I might not agree with the AZ law but I would not have shown up for that sham and witchhunt of a committee hearing. So many Senate protocols were violated to make it clear itsnsole purpose was to embarrass and not discuss a real solution.
I'd like to use Troy's "not that I am condoning crossing the border illegally" and use it as my own, because that goes for what I said, and what I will say.
Anyway, think about this. These people are legal citizens of their country. They don't need to worry about getting deported, or having their family broken up. They get benefits from the government. They can vote in elections. They give all that up to make a risky border crossing in the hopes of making what we would consider an insultingly low amount of money, and yet they still do it. How much must their life suck back home to make all that worth it?
We do have a problem with illegal immigrants in the US, but the solution doesn't hinge on mercilessly kicking out illegals. Rather, we need to find a way to make it possible for them to be citizens, so all their money can stay in the United States. It's win-win, really. Most of the constant yelling about kicking out the immigrants is xenophobia and rampant nationalism.
Troy, on slowness of recovery, one could argue that we face unique economic challenges (concentration of wealth and maxed-out personal credit leaving middle class with fewer resources to drive consumer spending and recovery, new tech and productivity reducing need for new labor) that trump policy comparisons.
On what the immigration numbers mean, the simple fact is that Obama is in charge, and the illegal immigrant numbers are dropping. We can correlate, causate, and obfuscate, but the raw numbers make it harder to sell "tough on illegal immigration" as a unique GOP advantage.
And what the heck: you get to attribute increased oil production to the previous administration, but Obama doesn't get to blame the slow recovery on the hole dug by Bush era policies? Come on, that's not fair, is it?
The difference Cory is for three years I have said the following would have no positive impact on the recovery and likely hurt it. A case can be made the anemic recovery (record lethargy) is in spite of Obama's policies.
HAFA: Three years later we are still in a housing recession. Nationally home prices dropped for the 6th month in a row.
Dodd-Frank: Growth of "to big to fail" is accelerating and loans are still constrained.
Do I have to repeat my arguments about the large deficit, obamacare, calls to increase cap gains and other taxes on the successful, and not signing trade agreements and the effect all have on new jobs?
If I had wanted to dream up a policy to hinder job creation, I wonder if I could have been so creative.
"unique economic challenges (concentration of wealth and maxed-out personal credit leaving middle class with fewer resources to drive consumer spending and recovery, new tech and productivity reducing need for new labor)"
Thanks to too big government, the federal reserve, and Neo-Cons.
It's it's a shame when the GOP has to hope the economy stays bad, and do everything possible to keep it that way in order to win elections.
Bill, wasn't that the Dems policy 2008?
No.
Identity Disturbance in Borderline Personality Disorder: An Empirical Investigation. Psychiatry Online.
Troy, I agree that the two issues you mention (housing market and Dodd Frank enforcement) are critical. Until the toxic assets are off the books, the market will stay sick. What I don't understand is how Romney intends to fix it. How would you advise him (if he was smart enough to ask you)?
I know this isn't the right thread, but since we seem to agree on immigration, (at least in broad strokes), let's move on.
Bill, that seems to be the GOP's strategy on just about everything, honestly. I think they know that they gain more by ruining a Dem policy than they do by shutting it down. If they shut it down, all they can say is, "We stopped this." If they ruin it and still leave it in effect, they get to say, "See how bad the Socialists are, that they force this kind of thing on you?"
I'm convinced all these terrible school ideas are part of a plan to drive people away from public schools.
Interesting theory Carter.
Let's brand it the GOP "Policy of Half-Assedness".
LOL
The solution is simple. What you call toxic assets are assets with more debt than they are worth which is related to the cash flow they can generate. Growth is the only solution.
The hard part is generate growth. What drives growth is expectations for future profits.
1) This means Romney needs to communicate profits are good and if you make profits you will not have them taxed such the government is the only winner from greater profits. This is the "animal spirits" concept. More profits/cash flow, the assets are no longer toxic.
2) Dodd-Frank needs to be repealed. It is only a damper on growth.
3) The shedding of toxic assets needs to have a broader definition. The banks have too many lines of business that distracts from focus, creates internal conflicts of interest, and absorbs too much capital. "Too Big to Fail Banks" need to be broken up. Selling lines of business will generate capital for them to handle an orderly sale of the toxic assets vs. dumping them in a undervalued world.
I could go on but in the end, continued anemic growth will only result is a slow bleeding to death, imperiling even the most universally accepted roles of government. The only criteria for government action is its effect on growth. Fairness debates and the resulting policies only result in more unfairness.
Still jamming on Carter's idea. Dems think the GOP is willing to play "Half a Loaf" but in reality they're just playing "Pinch a Loaf."
...okay, so it's not ready for prime time yet.
I'll keep working on it. LOL.
Thanks for the inspiration, Carter!
Troy, I don't think that's simple. But that's perhaps because I'm stupid. Let's find out.
First, why are the assets not worth what the banks want them to be worth? They're the ones who made the loans in the first place, right? Shouldn't they be the ones taking the hit?
Hey, when I buy a lottery ticket and it turns out to be worth less than the buck I paid for it, I don't try to sell it to somebody else for a buck and a quarter.
Let's go in small chunks, Troy. I really do want to hear you out on this. Why shouldn't the banks just hve to eat their losses... take the haircut and move on? And if not, why not?
I think the mistake that was made is that the money given to the banks shoud have been conditional: 'You take the hit and clear the deck, then we'll make sure you don't fold.' What would have been wrong with doing it that way?
“Too Big to Fail Banks†need to be broken up.
When you write things like this, Troy, aren't you worried that they'll take away your Republican of the month parking spot?
Seriously, that's something that should have happened with the original TARP/bailout/stimulus legislation(s).
Troy really does have good ideas on this, and they aren't the mainstream GOP or Dem talking points.
Bill,
1) Bank loans you $200K on your house. You quit making payments and its resale value is $150K. Bank reserves $70K against capital for loss and selling expense. These are the toxic assets whether houses, office buildings or business loans. If they liquidate, they will not cover the amount owed.
2) I think they should take the hit and to some degree they have (see reserve above). The problem is if they have too little capital, they can't make loans. Thus, forcing the hit to capital impacts ability to make loans. Even worse, if we force them to dump the assets all at once (imagine what happens to the value of homes in a neighborhood if they all come up for sale at once), the assets are even worth less which would cause the banks to go broke and it all falling on FDIC.
3) Then we have TARP (remember I opposed it). While "blame" falls with Obama's administration in they accepted the TARP repayments, I don't hit them to hard because it is application of hindsight. This said, the repayments were made and accepted by Treasury because all thought a recovery was imminent. What they probably should have done was keep the TARP cash(diluting shareholders) and liquidate the toxic assets. In short, what happened is nothing with regard to cleaning up the balance sheet of the problem banks. We have hte same problem we had when the crisis hit with virtually little improvement. This is essentially what you said in the last sentence. Unfortunately, you get to say it with 20-20 hindsight and the Obama administration didn't do that. Again, hard to be too hard on them but it now looks to be a mistake.
4) Speaking of TARP, we just heard that those moneys still out there are unlikely to be repaid. Thus, the worst banks kept the money and are still in trouble. Again, with 20-20 hindsight, we'd have been better off if we had closed them in 2009.
5) Then the problem is even worse because the administration allowed risky enterprises to become banks getting FDIC protection.
6) I know I harp on it alot but nothing good can occur until Dodd-Frank goes away. It is a "solution" to the wrong problem and creating a larger problem. The biggest banks are getting bigger because of it.
Jones for Congress.
So Troy, should we form a non-partisan coalition to repeal Gramm Leach?
i.e. all of us write to Kristi, Johnny and Timmy?
Wouldn't that eliminate the reason for Dodd-Frank? Or am I missing something. (Trying to remember my Troy lessons here.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm–Leach–Bliley_Act
Bill, I'm going to branch out from the current topic here and go back to your links to illegals paying taxes.
Do you have any thoughts as to why an illegal would choose to pay taxes? I certainly believe they do, but why?
"Jossie is still afraid of getting deported, so she asked that her last name be withheld. The summer that SB 1070 became law, she left the Phoenix area with her husband, two children and a cockatoo, Bernie.
She moved to New Mexico, where illegal immigrants can get driver's licenses. Her husband rekindled his catering business, and Jossie is cleaning houses again. She says there's a "big difference" between Arizona and New Mexico."
"New Mexico [offers] me opportunities. ... I am going to do something for New Mexico. I am going to tell my kids to do something good for New Mexico," she says."
http://www.npr.org/2012/04/22/150998605/arizonas-illegal-workforce-is-down-so-now-what
"I think they know that they gain more by ruining a Dem policy than they do by shutting it down."
That is why the SDGOP implemented or are implementing:
1) Obama's stimulus
2) Obamacare
3) Obama's Merit pay tied to Common Core Standards
4) Dauggaard sending a letter via the National Governors Association urging Obama's green energy.
Gramm Leach repeal is the answer.
Carter, a lot of the "Illegals" actually came into the country legally, via tourist visas, green cards, etc. Probably the main reason they pay taxes is because they want to have (and keep) their jobs. And they are trying to be as law abiding as possible and still be able to work. Here's a pretty good overview:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2008-04-10-immigrantstaxes_N.htm
The long and short of it is that they want a better life for themselves and their children and have taken America at its word when we say that's what our country is all about.
There are also some old political arguments that were perhaps best expressed by Delores Huerta when she said "We didn't cross the border, the border crossed us."
Taking the long, historical view, as with other American Indians (yes, most - if not all- Mexican's are Indians) they were here long before there was a USA or a Mexico.
So, as far as assimilation goes, for these folks it's kind of "damned if you do, and damned if you don't."
"Gramm Leach repeal is the answer."
Man, I love it when Troy makes it simple.
Thanks TJ!
Let's get to work on it.
http://www.change.org/petitions/the-us-senate-repeal-the-gramm-leach-bliley-act
I bet even Sibby will want to sign it...
Undoing the Janklow/Citibank era can be so daunting.
Audio review of hearings on AZ law: KCRW's To the Point.
Signed it Bill.
Bill, the problems did not start in 1999. It started in 1913. want to fix things? Then repeal the Federal Reserve Act.
So Sibby, start by signing this one and work your way back. LOL.
Larry, it looks like the "papers please" aspect of the law might be allowed to stand. I can't imagine AZ law enforcement will be happy if that happens.
Roy,
I'll admit that everything I know about 2008 collapse comes from Michael Lewis's The Big Short. You may have a different take on the book than I do, but I thought it was a great read.
The thing from the book that frightened me most was that no one in the big financial institions seems to think of any consequence other than profit, and everyone seems to game the system trying to think up new ways to sell worthless paper. I got the feeling from reading the book that the too big to fail banks were like the people who dream up new lottery games.
The things you're saying make sense, but it seems as if the too big to fail institutions have already thought how to beat the old/new system. What am I missing?
Should be Troy, not Roy--long damn day
Steve, the 80 years between the end of the Second Bank of the United States and the Federal Reserve Act was packed full of financial panics. In fact, almost all of our major recessions/depressions/panics stem from a lack of federal regulation, not too much regulation.
Certainly, many of our regulations (both now and historically) have no been effective, but that isn't proof that regulation doesn't work. It's proof that regulation needs to be very, very carefully thought through, and it needs to be flexible enough to modify the regulations should one part or another not work as planned.
LK, the banks are always thinking up ways to beat the system. More accurately, the people working in/with the banks, who stand to profit financially from exploiting holes in the system are thinking up ways to beat the system.
The bigger a bank is, the more ability they have to influence the entire economy. Therefore, when people at a huge bank take giant risks (or even do think that will definitively harm the economy) in order for individuals to get rich, the economy can be hit hard (2008 recession hard). If the banks are broken up into smaller banks (they used to be), the ability for a few individuals to destroy the entire economy is greatly diminished, because their bank controls less of the entire economy.
I don't know if the clarifies the right thing/anything, but there you have it.
So it would seem, Bill: guess we won't know til Summer...after the GOP primaries around convention time. Btw: Tampa is bemoaning the potential loss of revenue from delegates not hitting the strip clubs while escort services are likely to spike.
Calvinists: sheesh.
Aside: (Because sometimes I think this is what Sibby is really trying to say. And if so, I actually agree with him.)
Too much consolidation of power in the hands of too few will lead to the undoing of our democracy. This is as true if the "few" are in the private sector as is if they are in the public sector.
Short of armed struggle, we the people have two push back options. Voting and purchasing. The fact that only 38% of us vote in non-presidential years is a national disgrace. And the fact that we let big business take over the political media megaphone is equally appalling.
That said, let the 2012 political games begin.
And God help us.
I say, let the 2012 armed struggle begin!
Bill, this is why I'm in favor of very strong regulations on government and the private sector. Without restrictions to stop them, people with power will do whatever they can to increase their power and wealth.
More restrictions + more political parties + Saturday voting = More freedom.
Also, I'll be controversial here and say that we shouldn't be telling people that they're all just as fit to vote as anyone else. Realistically, a huge percentage of people aren't fit to make decisions regarding themselves, let alone develop opinion about how things are best done that aren't just something like "Well, Rush said.." or "Well, Rachel Maddow said...". I'm not saying we should ban them from voting (banning people from voting is bad, bad, bad), but I don't see the reason not to just gently remind certain people that they may be too dumb to form educated opinions.
Feel free to tear that idea to pieces, though. I'm not that attached to it.
Carter, I'm okay if stupid people vote. Nobody is as smart as everybody.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3rTzm2XhHo
I'd be great with that concept, except that we stopped promoting the idea of people actually thinking a long time ago. If people started to think, instead of just regurgitating every idea they hear from their favorite pundit, I think we could take an enormous step forward, but until then, we have a giant voting population who only goes out and votes for something because someone a pundit said it.
The trouble is, political pundits have thousands of votes. Us little people just have the one.
Hey Troy and Bill...you guys better be careful. Gramm-Leach-Bilily was called the "Citigroup Relief Act" back when it passed...and I've heard they have their some influence (wink-wink) here in good old SD.
What ever happened to Bilily...did he go out on a solo tour and ditch the band?
Oh yeah, and are there any consumer protections that we keep from Dodd-Frank or should we Men in Black flash our memories and go back to the good old days before Republican economics damn near bankrupted the country.
OK, the last part was snarky, but don't we need some protection for citizens from these global banks who have proven themselves to not be trusted?
From what I know about Dodd-Frank, it's mostly all optional stuff. The government has the option to liquidate large banks, the banks have the option to shut down parts of their bank. The trouble is that when it comes to something as risky as liquidating an entire bank, 99% of people (including government officials) would rather avoid making the call. Also, international banks aren't affected.
What might be good would be restricting banks to individual states, and restrict the number of different banks individual people or corporations can own. Bank of America can go back to Georgia. Citibank can go back to New York. South Dakota can keep First Bank and Trust, etc. Banks can only get so big, and bank collapses are more or less restricted to the state/area the bank is in.
LK,
I agree to large degree with your assessment with regard to the greed. And this is the result of government involvement.
First, they gambled with taxpayer funds via the access to Federal Reserve money and FDIC guarantees.
Second the government "oversight" gives a false sense of security.
It would have never happened if there had been diligence and oversight by shareholders in the marketplace. Maybe one bank but not the whole system.
Jana,
First, the protections of Dodd-Frank are excessively paternalistic. Second, they are excessively expensive driving up the cost of borrowing and making the banks weaker which decreases their capacity to support job growth. Finally, the "protections create advantages for the big banks which actually remove practical day to day protectionsfor the small guy.
Too paternalistic,
Troy, I appreciate your concern for the banks and that most of their problems are either from the government or pesky consumers. Where have Wells Fargo's profits been lately...they seem to be thriving under this legislation.
The perspective that they can't earn money the old fashioned way is only based on their 'credit default swap' era insane profits. What do bank earning look like historically?
Some of our friends also have daughters (and sons)...describe excessively paternalistic. Your not suggesting that if the crash the family car in a greed driven stupor that we should just buy them a new one are are you?
Just guessing that after the global bacchanal they inflicted on the US and world economy, maybe they need to be grounded and their cell/texting time limited and transparent. You know...some paternalistic/materialistic tough love to correct bad behavior enough to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Of course, like spoiled brats without any sense of right or wrong, the banks have shown zero remorse or admittance to bad behavior.
And you want to give them the keys to the Mercedes?
Just got an e-mail from Wells-Fargo. It was a notification that accounts like mine may be assessed a monthly charge. Don't know if it is actual or some scam. Think I will stop at the bank. Doubt I will recognize anybody there since almost all the tellers and loan officers I knew have quit.
Jana,
While you may think it clever to spout out "Rhetoric 101," your characterization of my views as "pro-bank" is wrong. Dodd-Frank passed with the quiet endorsement of the big banks and their asset size has grown faster than ever since passage. The repeal of both these bills will lessen artificial market advantage of the "too big to fail banks" and result in their break-up.
P.S. As you say Wells Fargo is prospering. Thanks for proving my point.
I, for one, agree with Troy that Dodd-Frank needs to go away. I don't agree that shareholders will sufficiently restrict banks. Most of what went on in the 2008 financial crisis was either done mostly without shareholder knowledge, or with shareholder support. Most people, in general, don't understand enough about the economy, or have enough foresight, to predict when a growth is growth, and when growth is a bubble waiting to pop.
My thought: Keep the banks small.