1. The Tea Party claims it was birthed by bailout anger, but-- other than some vague expression that they don't want any more bailouts-- they don't want to do anything about the underlying problem(s).
I don't see how you can say that. They're specifically looking to end the government's reliance on a "too big to fail" mindset that breeds bailout culture. You may not like what it may result in, but "let failing businesses fail" is doing something about the underlying problem, which is inappropriate government intervention in the market.
2. You are the one shifting all the blame to the "public sector" and "overregulation" and have laid no (non-hypothetical) blame so far on the Wall St execs or banks, leading me to believe that you believe they made every decision under duress and not for the comically large sums of money they accumulated doing so.
All the blame, no. Most of the blame, yes. Because, at the end of the day, many of the rules, regulations, and goals of governmental and government-sponsored entities accelerated the problem. As institutions not as heavily regulated need to compete, it creates a snowball effect. This does not mean that everyone diving in for a piece of the pie is innocent and the person offering a pie they should not have is completely guilty - that few, if any, stood back and said "hey, we might want to think about this" is a failure, but it's not the problem in place here. At the end of the day, companies want to make money - the government that tries to create winners and losers in the market deserves the most blame.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 30/11/11 21:33 (UTC)I don't see how you can say that. They're specifically looking to end the government's reliance on a "too big to fail" mindset that breeds bailout culture. You may not like what it may result in, but "let failing businesses fail" is doing something about the underlying problem, which is inappropriate government intervention in the market.
2. You are the one shifting all the blame to the "public sector" and "overregulation" and have laid no (non-hypothetical) blame so far on the Wall St execs or banks, leading me to believe that you believe they made every decision under duress and not for the comically large sums of money they accumulated doing so.
All the blame, no. Most of the blame, yes. Because, at the end of the day, many of the rules, regulations, and goals of governmental and government-sponsored entities accelerated the problem. As institutions not as heavily regulated need to compete, it creates a snowball effect. This does not mean that everyone diving in for a piece of the pie is innocent and the person offering a pie they should not have is completely guilty - that few, if any, stood back and said "hey, we might want to think about this" is a failure, but it's not the problem in place here. At the end of the day, companies want to make money - the government that tries to create winners and losers in the market deserves the most blame.