?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Living the Life Infernal
A Dragon's Life as a Man
Recent Entries 
13th-Oct-2010 02:16 pm - Saved Comments from Mother Jones
Treehugger
Wanted to save this from some comments : http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/10/palin-death-panels-newsmax-health-care
Bosn Today 05:47 AM in reply to sam
Unfortunately, it is a "left-right" or "conservative-liberal" issue. It was made into one by those like Palin and those who follow her ilk. The Bushes, Roves, andPalins of the US have seized on the anti-intellectual, Christian fundamentalist, xenophobic, nativist incliniations of many Americans to forward their agenda.

That agenda favors the status quo wherein political policay is guided by the profit-making concerns of a big money oligarchy they preys on the American people. They have ridiculed Obama for his alleged desire to "redistribute wealth," to the middle class, labelling it a "socialist agenda." At the same time they seek a "redistribution of wealth" in the other direction, taking it from the pockets of the middle class and transfering it to the pockets of the already wealthy.

They do this by constructing mindless slogans such as "death panels." They feed their pablum of trite rhetoric to a mind-numbed population of "worker drones" unable to see further than the slogans. That myopia results in a "blind" adherence to an ideology that perpetuates the interests of those who have no concern for the needs of the middle and lower classes. It is an ideology that demands an unending supply of "bendy straws," the "bodies and blood" of our young to support its unending wars, and the betterment of their corporate and "small business" bottom lines.

No, my friend, it is very much a "left-right" issue. The right or conservative status quo agenda that desires to transfer wealth from those in the middle and bottom upward to those at the top. To counter that agenda, the left or liberal agenda fights to ensure all receive the benefits of the American Dream by ensuring equal access to water, food, shelter, a comfortable standard of living and yes dammit adequate health care.

I do not understand how anyone, who woudl deny these things to all Americans, can call themselves a Christian or an American. Apparently, the conservative right has figured out a way!
19 people liked this. Liked Reply

Imogene Brodie Today 10:18 AM in reply to Bosn
This says it all. Could not have said it better and I'm 80 yrs old. Most are the newly rich, inherited the money, did not work for it. Most of their parents were true Americans, concerned for the mass of the people and the betterment of this great nation. Then came the greedy desire for slave labor no loyalty to the country or it's citizens only the almighty dollar. Out sourced jobs, backed deregulation, privatized roads, bridges bought with our tax dollars, DID NOT CREATE ANY JOBS during their 10 yr. tax break. Money is more evenly distributed top to bottom when DEMS are in office.
15th-Oct-2009 07:55 pm - I've had it up to Here!
Meez Stop
Not every member of the military is a hero.  Most of them are not.  You got a few good people, a lot of average people and a lot of sorry jerks.

While one bad apple doesn't ruin the whole barrel, I don't think that we should label the whole barrel A+ Superior, including that bad apple and all the mediocre apples in the barrel.

I know from personal experience that wearing a military uniform does not make one a decent person.  My father left my Mom, me and my little brother for a tour of duty in Germany and abandoned us for some chick he met there.  My uncle is an all around hypocrit and sorry excuse for a human being and was an army recruiter.  The guy pictured below went on a tour of duty in Iraq where he abandoned his wife at home and took up with mine.  Those are not Heroes. 

Every video out there that paints every military person as such tells me that it doesn't matter what atrocities they commit against me or others, they are still heroes.

If you hand out the title "Hero" to just anyone and it looses all of its meaning. A Hero is someone who is a good person, who does great, beyond-the-call-of-duty things and makes a significant contribution to the greater good. A Hero is not someone who just puts on a uniform and picks up a paycheck.

So, if your military personel experience has not been all that great, post a picture and a story here.  I want to stop all those stupid, sappy videos out there making every single person in uniform all out to be heroes just for putting on a uniform.
Asshole  For Example... this asshole prides himself on being "The Asshole."  He is an obnoxious jerk, a liar, a cheater / adulterer, homewrecker, bisexual crossdresser, potential pedophile and at least four-time deadbeat dad.  That sound like a Hero to you?

You think I shouldn't bring up things like that in public?  Then don't put sorry scum like this up on a pedestal just because they have a sometimes dangerous (part-time) job.  They're not all Heroes, they are not all patriotic and good-hearted.

Please don't sully the ones that are really Heroes by lumping them in with all the scum and don't give the scum a free pass just because they happen to have the same job as a few heroes and lot of good people.

AhHa!
Re-posting an old article...  from... geeze.... 2000?


First, the Apocalypse. I know some of you are going, oh no, not another doomsdayer. Well, you're right, I'm not another doomsdayer! I am talking about the major earth changes that are about to take place.

The predictions about the apocalypse come from all kinds of sources and have been around for a long time. There have been signs to look for and all sorts of fears about what will happen. One of the earliest sources of predictions about the apocalypse is The Bible. It tells of wars and floods and fires.. and demons and angels and horsemen. Nostradaums predicted terrorism, bad weather and natural disasters. All kinds of mystics have warned of the end of the world. Why not add my two cents worth? I'll tell you what I have "learned" about the upcoming events.

Here is what I have seen and heard about; my predictions if you will. First, I 'was told' that all this would start going down this year, 1998. I don't think it will start big, but it will start. Already we've had very bad weather patterns and natural disasters. They will get worse.

I have seen a few major things that will happen. I saw a volcano erupting in California, and recently read where someone else predicted the same thing. I also saw a lot of smoke around Washington, D.C. A friend of mine said he had a similar vision and that the smoke was another volcano! These volcanos will of course set off earthquakes, or be the result of earthquakes. The Mississippi river will expand very rapidly and flood a great deal of the lands surrounding it. It will almost connect with the great lakes, leaving only a relatively small land bridge between the East and West! Along with this will come atmospheric and climatic changes.

Humanity will NOT be wiped out, but will take a heavy loss of population. 3/4 of the Earth's population will be gone, perhaps even in a 'Rapture.' hee hee hee. There will be anarchy and violence for a while after the 'world ends,' but it will pass. The remaining people will (hopefully) be a more peaceful and courteous group dedicated to living in harmony with the Earth. We, for I plan to survive to see this, will have to live off the land and become nomadic and tribal again. Some technology will remain, but be used more conscientiously.

One of the most interesting things that I saw were Rhinos in America! There were lots of exotic animals running around. I finally figured out why. We have plenty of Zoos in America! I figure that once in the wild, the animals bred and without much human interference, thrived. There was also a lot more 'magick' about as well. I suppose that with not as many humans to soak up the energy, there is more available to work with.

- the End.

 


1st-Oct-2009 07:30 pm - Aaron Buchanan
Treehugger
A story from a past life?

The Story Of Aaron Buchannan

The year was 1432 and there was a battle raging in Scotland. In the melee a group of three clansmen were standing in a well known battle stance as they cut the enemy down. The middle man of this trio stood taller than the others, his hair black, eyes of jade. Aaron Buchannan stood his ground cutting into the men who came against him, growling and screaming ferociously. All he could see was the enemy, men coming to kill him. The edges of his vision were blurry, obscured by the din of battle. All he could hear was a low hum, a pounding in his ears, his own heartbeat. The smell was heavy, as if the air itself would solidify in moments. His body felt like liquid fire, with ice running through the veins. With every body his blade drank the life of, his stomach would wrench, and his brain buckle, his heart break. His tears kept his eyes clean and focused on the enemy, whom he would cut down, whom he would cry for.

After the battle, Aaron returned home to the quite life with his loving wife and child. One quite evening the two were sitting outside their cottage with some friends and neighbors, Aaron laying back in his wife's lap, drinking on a tankard of brew. The topic turned to life lessons and Aaron fell quite. The group talked and discussed their various life stories and finally turned to Aaron. The question was posed, "What good advice do you have for life?"

Aaron looked up, took a good draught on his brew and sat up. "Be courageous. Have courage in all you do. Do what is necessary. Don't back down from you duties or from doing what is right. And love. Most important of all, Love."

The whole group fell silent as Aaron leaned back and kissed his wife. Quite conversation struck up after a moment and the night wound down. Later that month, there was a festival and Aaron spent it dancing for the crowds and dancing with his wife, for they were both excellent dancers.
Late in the evening, one young man approached Aaron asking about his battle experience. After a few strategy stories, the youngster pressed about actual battle and Aaron gave him one bit of battle knowledge :

"There is no joy in killin. None at all."


22nd-Sep-2009 07:08 am - Another Copied for Posterity Article
Treehugger
American Christianity Is At The Heart Of Our Worst Problems
racism is at The heart of the great deal of the extreme animosity
 
Former president Jimmy Carter went on the record to point out that he believes that racism is at the heart of the great deal of the extreme animosity being leveled at President Obama (NBC News September 15). Carter identified himself as a Southerner with an insider's understanding. There's something he didn't mention however: the special culpability of his own religion -- Evangelical Christianity -- for the anti-Obama hyperventilating and furious reaction to our first black president. And that reaction has less to do with race and more to do with the ugliest side of religion.
-----------------------
The fact is that if you're going to blame one group above all others for the willful ignorance and continuing ugliness of the response to President Obama the best candidate would be the evangelical/fundamentalist community. The angry part of the South Carter spoke of is racist because it's dominated by a certain type of "Christian" culture.
--------------
Since Carter is also an evangelical Christian (as well as a Southerner) he would have done well to use his evangelical insider status to point to not just racism but to scream bloody murder about a bigger problem today: the hijacking of Christianity as the source of the hate and anger directed against all things "other" by a vocal (and health care lobby-organized and funded) angry minority of voters who are poisoning the American body.
---------------------
American Christianity Is At The Heart Of Our Worst Problems
------------------------
Are the New Atheists leading us to enlightenment? The problem with the recent New Atheist attacks on Christianity is that they mirror the hostility of the evangelical/fundamentalist subculture toward the secular society that it so disdains. The real answer to the question; "Can Christianity be saved from the Christians?" is not going to be found coming from people like Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris et al. Instead that answer may be found in the life and work of Christians such as former president Jimmy Carter, President Obama, the late writer John Updike, and other public figures from Desmond Tutu to Nelson Mandela who's faith can be taken seriously because of the moral authority given them by their achievements outside the realm of theology.
---------------------------------
The people running around calling Obama is "Hitler", the so-called "birthers" and all the rest can't be understood outside of the context of the hermetically sealed world-hating gated community known as Evangelical Christianity. As a former Evangelical and son of an Evangelical Religious Right leader, let me share a little of the insider perspective that I wish Carter had brought to the subject.
----------------------------
What Defines American Evangelicals These Days?
------------------------
The key to understanding the Evangelicals is to understand the popularity of the Left Behind series of books about the "return of Christ" (and the whole host of other End Times "ministries" from the ever weirder Jack-the-Rapture-is-coming!-Van-Impe to the smoother but no less bizarre pages of Christianity Today magazine). This isn't some new or sudden interest in prophecy, but evidence of the deepening inferiority complex suffered by the evangelical/fundamentalist community.
---Left Behind----------
The words "left behind" are ironically what the books are about, but not in the way their authors intended. The evangelical/fundamentalists, from their crudest egocentric celebrities to their "intellectuals" touring college campuses trying to make evangelicalism respectable, have indeed been left behind by modernity. They won't change their literalistic anti-science, anti-education, anti-everything superstitions, so now they nurse a deep grievance against "the world."
----------------------------------
This has led to a profound fear of the "other." Jenkins and LaHaye (the Left Behind authors) provide the ultimate revenge fantasy for the culturally left behind against the "elite." The Left Behind franchise holds out hope for the self-disenfranchised that at last soon everyone will know "we" were right and "they" were wrong. They'll know because Spaceship Jesus will come back and whisk "us" away, leaving everyone else to ponder just how very lost they are because they refused to say the words, "I accept Jesus as my personal savior" and join our side while there was still time!
-----------------------
The bestselling status of the Left Behind novels proves that, not unlike Islamist terrorists who behead their enemies, many evangelical/ fundamentalist readers relish the prospect of God doing lots of messy killing for them as they watch in comfort from on high. They want revenge on all people not like them--forever.
------------ Generations Of Indoctrination-------------
We are several generations into the progeny of leaders such as James Dobson and his radio show Focus On The Family. These offspring extol the virtues of corporal punishment, patriarchy, applying biblical law to public governance and so forth. Millions of evangelicals have been raised in homes where they've been isolated from the wider culture, home schooled and/or sent to "Christian schools" where they have been indoctrinated to believe that the Federal Government is the enemy of all true believers, that the "End" is near, that secular society is their enemy as is art, learning and culture.
-------------------
They now form a Fifth Column of the deliberately intellectually disenfranchised. They know they are out of the loop and hate the rest of us for their own self-imposed isolation. I'm afraid they will soon turn to violence.
-----------------------------
Here Are The Alternatives To Change the Theologically-Induced Hate Landscape:
----- A) all sane Americans must become atheists or agnostics,
----- or... B) those of us who are Christians must rescue Christianity from the willfully ignorant evangelicals and fundamentalists. ---------------------------
I favor the second alternative. First, having been raised in an evangelical/fundamentalist home I've long since moved beyond my background when it comes to my politics and my theology. That proves something; people can change their minds! I did.
------------------------
But I believe more strongly than ever that we human beings are spiritual beings with or without the permission of those who take a purely rationalist approach to human existence. The better -- and I think only realistic option -- is to regard religion as an evolving process of human consciousness and work to reform rather than eliminate it
-----------------------------
In my soon-to-be published book Patience With God: Faith For People Who Don't Like Religion (Or Atheism) I have very deliberately started a radical conversation through which I hope many of us can carve out a position that embraces religion while absolutely rejecting the type of insanity that has become synonymous with the word--- "Christian"---- in contemporary America.

------------ " THE REPUBLICAN-ZIONIST PARTY IS A HATE GROUP"

------Go To: highfive4u.com or highfive4all.com
Cauldron
So, GardenSERF got me thinking a bit too much over on Twitter.

There was this "blah blah blah" and then I mentioned that I believe in Personal Responsibility - you own your actions and their consequences. 

He replied with "@bobbykearan Then why b concerned about spiritual forces & just default to "might makes right" on material plane" and "@bobbykearan Individuals can determine their own law/responsibility & act accordingly. The strong will survive..." then "sounds pretty dangerous to me."

With only a few characters to work with... I chose to come here and sort it out. :D

Just because Spiritual Forces exist does not mean they control individuals in any way.  Not being controlled does not mean that "Might makes right" either.  Responsibility does not equal Law either.  I would describe Law, in relation to this conversation, as a listing of civil consequences of certain actions.

Even with law, a man can still choose to murder another man.  He then faces the consequences of doing so - arrest, imprisonment and perhaps even death.  There are still Spiritual consequences of his actions to consider as well as mental and emotional.

Just because one is not a slave to spiritual forces, able to be compelled against their will to obey those forces, does not mean they are not something to take into consideration when making your choice of actions.

I've never understood the argument that says, "If there is no God, then why be good?"  I don't believe that "good" is something brought on only by the fear of punishment from some angry old man in the sky.  Doing good and doing right is it's own reward.  Doing wrong and the "might makes right" attitude have their own, inherent punishments.  Nothing to do with whether or not there is some grumpy deity in the clouds waiting to smite you.
14th-Sep-2009 12:15 pm - From BNO News, Obama's Speech
Check The Book

From the BNO Newsroom.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (BNO NEWS) -- President Obama delivered the following remarks on financial rescue and reform at the Federal Hall in New York on Monday.

"Thank you all for being here and for your warm welcome. It’s a privilege to be in historic Federal Hall. It was here more than two centuries ago that our first Congress served and our first President was inaugurated. It was here, in the early days of our Republic, that Hamilton and Jefferson debated how best to administer a young economy and to ensure that our nation rewarded the talents and drive of its people. Two centuries later, we still grapple with these questions – questions made more acute in moments of crisis.

It was one year ago that we experienced just such a crisis. As investors and pension-holders watched with dread and dismay, and after a series of emergency meetings often conducted in the dead of the night, several of the world’s largest and oldest financial institutions had fallen, either bankrupt, bought, or bailed out: Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, Washington Mutual, Wachovia. A week before this began, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had been taken over by the government. Other large firms teetered on the brink of insolvency. Credit markets froze as banks refused to lend not only to families and businesses but to one another. Five trillion dollars of Americans’ household wealth evaporated in the span of just three months.

Congress and the previous administration took difficult but necessary action in the days and months that followed. Nevertheless, when this administration walked through the door in January, the situation remained urgent. The markets had fallen sharply; credit was not flowing. It was feared that the largest banks – those that remained standing – had too little capital and far too much exposure to risky loans. And the consequences had spread far beyond the streets of lower Manhattan. This was no longer just a financial crisis; it had become a full-blown economic crisis, with home prices sinking, businesses struggling to access affordable credit, and the economy shedding an average of 700,000 jobs each month.

We could not separate what was happening in the corridors of our financial institutions from what was happening on factory floors and around kitchen tables. Home foreclosures linked those who took out home loans and those who repackaged those loans as securities. A lack of access to affordable credit threatened the health of large firms and small businesses, as well as all those whose jobs depended on them. And a weakened financial system weakened the broader economy, which in turn further weakened the financial system.

The only way to address successfully any of these challenges was to address them together, and so this administration – with terrific leadership by my Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, as well the Chair of my Council of Economic Advisers, Christy Romer, and the Chair of the National Economic Council, Larry Summers – moved quickly on all fronts, initializing a financial stability plan to rescue the system from the crisis and restart lending for all those affected by the crisis. By opening and examining the books of large financial firms, we helped restore the availability of two things that had been in short supply: capital and confidence. By taking aggressive and innovative steps in credit markets, we spurred lending not just to banks, but to folks looking to buy homes or cars, take out student loans, or finance small businesses. Our home ownership plan has helped responsible homeowners refinance to stem the tide of lost homes and lost home values.

And the recovery plan is providing help to the unemployed and tax relief for working families, all while spurring consumer spending. It’s prevented layoffs of tens of thousands of teachers, police officers, and other essential public servants. And thousands of recovery projects are underway all across America, putting people to work building wind turbines and solar panels, renovating schools and hospitals, and repairing our nation’s roads and bridges.

Eight months later, the work of recovery continues. And although I will never be satisfied while people are out of work and our financial system is weakened, we can be confident that the storms of the past two years are beginning to break.

In fact, while there continues to be a need for government involvement to stabilize the financial system, that necessity is waning. After months in which public dollars were flowing into our financial system, we are finally beginning to see money flowing back to the taxpayers. This doesn’t mean taxpayers will escape the worst financial crisis in decades unscathed. But banks have repaid more than $70 billion, and in those cases where the government’s stake has been sold completely, taxpayers have actually earned a 17-percent return on their investment. Just a few months ago, many experts from across the ideological spectrum feared that ensuring financial stability would require even more tax dollars. Instead, we’ve been able to eliminate a $250 billion reserve included in our budget because that fear has not been realized.

While full recovery of the financial system will take a great deal more time and work, the growing stability resulting from these interventions means we are beginning to return to normalcy. But what I want to emphasize is this: normalcy cannot lead to complacency.

Unfortunately, there are some in the financial industry who are misreading this moment. Instead of learning the lessons of Lehman and the crisis from which we are still recovering, they are choosing to ignore them. They do so not just at their own peril, but at our nation’s. So I want them to hear my words: We will not go back to the days of reckless behavior and unchecked excess at the heart of this crisis, where too many were motivated only by the appetite for quick kills and bloated bonuses. Those on Wall Street cannot resume taking risks without regard for consequences, and expect that next time, American taxpayers will be there to break their fall.

That’s why we need strong rules of the road to guard against the kind of systemic risks we have seen. And we have a responsibility to write and enforce these rules to protect consumers of financial products, taxpayers, and our economy as a whole. Yes, they must be developed in a way that does not stifle innovation and enterprise. And we want to work with the financial industry to achieve that end. But the old ways that led to this crisis cannot stand. And to the extent that some have so readily returned to them underscores the need for change and change now. History cannot be allowed to repeat itself.

Instead, we are calling on the financial industry to join us in a constructive effort to update the rules and regulatory structure to meet the challenges of this new century. That is what my administration seeks to do. We have sought ideas and input from industry leaders, policy experts, academics, consumer advocates, and the broader public. And we’ve worked closely with leaders in the Senate and House, including Senators Chris Dodd and Richard Shelby, and Congressman Barney Frank, who are now working to pass regulatory reform through Congress.

Taken together, we are proposing the most ambitious overhaul of the financial system since the Great Depression. But I want to emphasize that these reforms are rooted in a simple principle: we ought to set clear rules of the road that promote transparency and accountability. That’s how we’ll make certain that markets foster responsibility, not recklessness, and reward those who compete honestly and vigorously within the system, instead of those who try to game the system.

First, we’re proposing new rules to protect consumers and a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency to enforce those rules. This crisis was not just the result of decisions made by the mightiest of financial firms. It was also the result of decisions made by ordinary Americans to open credit cards and take on mortgages. And while there were many who took out loans they knew they couldn’t afford, there were also millions of Americans who signed contracts they didn’t fully understand offered by lenders who didn’t always tell the truth.

This is in part because there is no single agency charged with making sure it doesn’t happen. That is what we’ll change. The Consumer Financial Protection Agency will have the power to ensure that consumers get information that is clear and concise, and to prevent the worst kinds of abuses. Consumers shouldn’t have to worry about loan contracts designed to be unintelligible, hidden fees attached to their mortgages, and financial penalties – whether through a credit card or debit card – that appear without warning on their statements. And responsible lenders, including community banks, doing the right thing shouldn’t have to worry about ruinous competition from unregulated competitors.

Now there are those who are suggesting that somehow this will restrict the choices available to consumers. Nothing could be further from the truth. The lack of clear rules in the past meant we had innovation of the wrong kind: the firm that could make its products look best by doing the best job of hiding the real costs won. For example, we had “teaser” rates on credit cards and mortgages that lured people in and then surprised them with big rate increases. By setting ground rules, we’ll increase the kind of competition that actually provides people better and greater choices, as companies compete to offer the best product, not the one that’s most complex or confusing.

Second, we’ve got to close the loopholes that were at the heart of the crisis. Where there were gaps in the rules, regulators lacked the authority to take action. Where there were overlaps, regulators often lacked accountability for inaction. These weaknesses in oversight engendered systematic, and systemic, abuse.

Under existing rules, some companies can actually shop for the regulator of their choice – and others, like hedge funds, can operate outside of the regulatory system altogether. We’ve seen the development of financial instruments, like derivatives and credit default swaps, without anyone examining the risks or regulating all of the players. And we’ve seen lenders profit by providing loans to borrowers who they knew would never repay, because the lender offloaded the loan and the consequences to someone else. Those who refuse to game the system are at a disadvantage.

Now, one of the main reasons this crisis could take place is that many agencies and regulators were responsible for oversight of individual financial firms and their subsidiaries, but no one was responsible for protecting the whole system. In other words, regulators were charged with seeing the trees, but not the forest. And even then, some firms that posed a “systemic risk” were not regulated as strongly as others, exploiting loopholes in the system to take on greater risk with less scrutiny. As a result, the failure of one firm threatened the viability of many others. We were facing one of the largest financial crises in history and those responsible for oversight were caught off guard and without the authority to act.

That’s why we’ll create clear accountability and responsibility for regulating large financial firms that pose a systemic risk. While holding the Federal Reserve fully accountable for regulation of the largest, most interconnected firms, we’ll create an oversight council to bring together regulators from across markets to share information, to identify gaps in regulation, and to tackle issues that don’t fit neatly into an organizational chart. We’ll also require these financial firms to meet stronger capital and liquidity requirements and observe greater constraints on their risky behavior. That’s one of the lessons of the past year. The only way to avoid a crisis of this magnitude is to ensure that large firms can’t take risks that threaten our entire financial system, and to make sure they have the resources to weather even the worst of economic storms.

Even as we’ve proposed safeguards to make the failure of large and interconnected firms less likely, we’ve also proposed creating what’s called “resolution authority” in the event that such a failure happens and poses a threat to the stability of the financial system. This is intended to put an end to the idea that some firms are “too big to fail.” For a market to function, those who invest and lend in that market must believe that their money is actually at risk. And the system as a whole isn’t safe until it is safe from the failure of any individual institution.

If a bank approaches insolvency, we have a process through the FDIC that protects depositors and maintains confidence in the banking system. This process was created during the Great Depression when the failure of one bank led to runs on other banks, which in turn threatened the banking system. And it works. Yet we don’t have any kind of process in place to contain the failure of a Lehman Brothers or AIG or any of the largest and most interconnected financial firms in our country.

That’s why, when this crisis began, crucial decisions about what would happen to some of the world’s biggest companies – companies employing tens of thousands of people and holding trillions of dollars in assets – took place in hurried discussions in the middle of the night. And that’s why we’ve had to rely on taxpayer dollars. The only resolution authority we currently have that would prevent a financial meltdown involved tapping the Federal Reserve or the federal treasury. With so much at stake, we should not be forced to choose between allowing a company to fall into a rapid and chaotic dissolution that threatens the economy and innocent people, or forcing taxpayers to foot the bill. Our plan would put the cost of a firm’s failure on those who own its stock and loaned it money. And if taxpayers ever have to step in again to prevent a second Great Depression, the financial industry will have to pay the taxpayer back – every cent.

Finally, we need to close the gaps that exist not just within this country but among countries. The United States is leading a coordinated response to promote recovery and to restore prosperity among both the world’s largest economies and the world’s fastest growing economies. At a summit in London in April, leaders agreed to work together in an unprecedented way to spur global demand but also to address the underlying problems that caused such a deep and lasting global recession. This work will continue next week in Pittsburgh when I convene the G20, which has proven to be an effective forum for coordinating policies among key developed and emerging economies and one that I see taking on an important role in the future.

Essential to this effort is reforming what’s broken in the global financial system – a system that links economies and spreads both rewards and risks. For we know that abuses in financial markets anywhere can have an impact everywhere; and just as gaps in domestic regulation lead to a race to the bottom, so too do gaps in regulation around the world. Instead, we need a global race to the top, including stronger capital standards, as I’ve called for today. As the United States is aggressively reforming our regulatory system, we will be working to ensure that the rest of the world does the same.

A healthy economy in the 21st Century also depends upon our ability to buy and sell goods in markets across the globe. And make no mistake, this administration is committed to pursuing expanded trade and new trade agreements. It is absolutely essential to our economic future. But no trading system will work if we fail to enforce our trade agreements. So when, as happened this weekend, we invoke provisions of existing agreements, we do so not to be provocative or to promote self-defeating protectionism. We do so because enforcing trade agreements is part and parcel of maintaining an open and free trading system.

And just as we have to live up to our responsibilities on trade, we have to live up to our responsibilities on financial reform as well. I have urged leaders in Congress to pass regulatory reform this year and both Congressman Frank and Senator Dodd, who are leading this effort, have made it clear that that’s what they intend to do. Now there will be those who defend the status quo. There will be those who argue we should do less or nothing at all. But to them I’d say only this: do you believe that the absence of sound regulation one year ago was good for the financial system? Do you believe the resulting decline in markets and wealth and employment was good for the economy? Or the American people?

I’ve always been a strong believer in the power of the free market. I believe that jobs are best created not by government, but by businesses and entrepreneurs willing to take a risk on a good idea. I believe that the role of government is not to disparage wealth, but to expand its reach; not to stifle markets, but to provide the ground rules and level playing field that helps to make them more vibrant – and that will allow us to better tap the creative and innovative potential of our people. For we know that it is the dynamism of our people that has been the source of America’s progress and prosperity.

So I certainly did not run for President to bail out banks or intervene in the capital markets. But it is important to note that the very absence of common-sense regulations able to keep up with a fast-paced financial sector is what created the need for that extraordinary intervention. The lack of sensible rules of the road, so often opposed by those who claim to speak for the free market, led to a rescue far more intrusive than anything any of us, Democrat or Republican, progressive or conservative, would have proposed or predicted.

At the same time, what we must do now goes beyond just these reforms. For what took place one year ago was not merely a failure of regulation or legislation; it was not merely a failure of oversight or foresight. It was a failure of responsibility that allowed Washington to become a place where problems – including structural problems in our financial system – were ignored rather than solved. It was a failure of responsibility that led homebuyers and derivative traders alike to take reckless risks they couldn’t afford. It was a collective failure of responsibility in Washington, on Wall Street, and across America that led to the near-collapse of our financial system one year ago.

Restoring a willingness to take responsibility – even when it is hard – is at the heart of what we must do. Here on Wall Street, you have a responsibility. The reforms I’ve laid out will pass and these changes will become law. But one of the most important ways to rebuild the system stronger than before is to rebuild trust stronger than before – and you do not have to wait for a new law to do that. You don’t have to wait to use plain language in your dealings with consumers. You don’t have to wait to put the 2009 bonuses of your senior executives up for a shareholder vote. You don’t have to wait for a law to overhaul your pay system so that folks are rewarded for long-term performance instead of short-term gains.

The fact is, many of the firms that are now returning to prosperity owe a debt to the American people. Though they were not the cause of the crisis, American taxpayers through their government took extraordinary action to stabilize the financial industry. They shouldered the burden of the bailout and they are still bearing the burden of the fallout – in lost jobs, lost homes and lost opportunities. It is neither right nor responsible after you’ve recovered with the help of your government to shirk your obligation to the goal of wider recovery, a more stable system, and a more broadly shared prosperity.

So I want to urge you to demonstrate that you take this obligation to heart. To put greater effort into helping families who need their mortgages modified under my administration’s homeownership plan. To help small business owners who desperately need loans and who are bearing the brunt of the decline in available credit. To help communities that would benefit from the financing you could provide, or the community development institutions you could support. To come up with creative approaches to improve financial education and to bring banking to those who live and work entirely outside the banking system. And, of course, to embrace serious financial reform, not fight it.

Just as we are asking the private sector to think about the long term, Washington must as well. When my administration came through the door, we not only faced a financial crisis and costly recession, we also found waiting a trillion-dollar deficit. Yes, we have had to take extraordinary action in the wake of an extraordinary economic crisis. But I am committed to putting this nation on a sound and secure fiscal footing. That’s why we’re pushing to restore pay-as-you-go rules, because I will not go along with the old Washington ways which said it was OK to pass spending bills and tax cuts without a plan to pay for it. That’s why we’re cutting programs that don’t work or are out of date. And that’s why I’ve insisted that health insurance reform not add a dime to the deficit, now or in the future.

There are those who would suggest that we must choose between markets unfettered by even the most modest of regulations – and markets weighed down by onerous regulations that suppress the spirit of enterprise and innovation. But if there is one lesson we can learn from the last year, it is that this is a false choice. Common-sense rules of the road do not hinder the markets but make them stronger. Indeed, they are essential to ensuring that our markets function, and function fairly and freely.

One year ago, we saw in stark relief how markets can err; how a lack of common-sense rules can lead to excess and abuse; how close we can come to the brink. One year later, it is incumbent on us to put in place those reforms that will prevent this kind of crisis from ever happening again; that reflect the painful but important lessons we’ve learned; and that will help us move from a period of recklessness and crisis to one of responsibility and prosperity. That is what we must do. And I’m confident that is what we will do.

Thank you."

This page was loaded Dec 16th 2017, 12:46 pm GMT.