Jon Huntsman drops a big bomb on economics and financial policy with radical overhaul plan
WASHINGTON -- Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman called Monday for a major financial overhaul that would break up too-big-to-fail banks and deliver justice to homeowners and investors harmed by rogue foreclosures.
The proposal from the former Utah governor is the first Wall Street overhaul outlined by any candidate in the 2012 presidential field, and features some of the most aggressive reforms advocated in the aftermath of the Wall Street meltdown. Many of Huntsman's ideas were even left out of Dodd-Frank, the financial legislation President Barack Obama signed into law in the summer of 2010.
Huntsman described his proposals Monday by emphasizing conservative principles, including respect for the rule of law and fair play in a transparent free market. And his plan includes calls to repeal Dodd-Frank and to shut down government-backed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, standard demands among the Republican presidential pack. The main tenets of the proposal, however, ally Huntsman with some of the most avowedly progressive Democrats in American policymaking.
Huntsman called to set a limit on bank size relative to the size of the economy, and to apply a variety of taxes against the banks to make it more costly to exceed that limit. Banks could still choose to exceed the limit and pay hefty taxes, according to a source close to the campaign, but would be strongly encouraged to stay below the line for the sake of their own profitability. Any tax revenue that the government reaped from the plan would be devoted toward lowering tax rates for non-financial corporations.
"Anything that is too big to fail is simply too big -- with the real danger that large banks have the incentive and ability to become even bigger," the proposal says. "There are a number of tools we can use to break the 'doom loop,' in which banks and their creditors are bailed out, and therefore feel empowered to again take excessive risk."
Congress briefly considered breaking up big banks during the debate over Dodd-Frank. That plan was authored by Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Ted Kaufmann (D-Del.). It garnered just 33 votes in the Senate, nowhere near the 60 needed to clear a filibuster, amid heavy lobbying opposition from the nation's largest banks. Unlike Huntsman's plan, Brown and Kaufmann's would have simply required banks to break up, rather than encourage them to do so via new taxes. Although Huntsman's plan is somewhat lighter on the too-big-to-fail crowd, it would also be able to enlist a set of lobbying allies that Brown and Kaufmann did not, as a result of its pledge to lower taxes on other companies.
In addition to big-picture structural overhauls, Huntsman is the only Republican to demand that the government take strong action against fraudulent foreclosures.
Really, this plan is audatious even by Democrat standards. But would it work? Would the banks, the Republicans and their Tea-Party voters scream hellfire and brimstone over it?
Life sucks and is probably meaningless, but that doesn't mean there's no reason to be good.
Huntsman is tacking toward the middle of the political spectrum. It's a risky bet, but one that has the potential to massively pay off in the General if he gets that far.
For me as the still-conservative former Republican, he's the least bad option on the right, and one of the three current candidates that I would vote for over the President (I'm still not happy with his implication that he would move for further cuts to the carrier force and other large power-projection assets).
"I believe in the future. It is wonderful because it stands on what has been achieved." - Sergei Korolev
Good on Huntsman. I would be proud to vote against him instead of Mittens in the General.
"Do I really look like a guy with a plan? Y'know what I am? I'm a dog chasing cars. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it! Y'know, I just do things..." --The Joker
TimothyC wrote:Huntsman is tacking toward the middle of the political spectrum. It's a risky bet, but one that has the potential to massively pay off in the General if he gets that far.
For me as the still-conservative former Republican, he's the least bad option on the right, and one of the three current candidates that I would vote for over the President...
Gingrich - although he's much more marginal than the other two. I'd vote for him simply because he's got a head on his shoulders that the rest of the field doesn't.
"I believe in the future. It is wonderful because it stands on what has been achieved." - Sergei Korolev
I was reading today how Mitt Romney does well in certain ways with Republican voters but they find him too "aloof" or lacking wamrth or fear he's not 'Republican' enough. I found that rather interesting because it really shows you what ultimately gets votes in the system we have - basically unless you can 'sell' yourself or look flashy or charismatic, you probably aren't going to win the voters. Looking back from Reagen onwards, (and hell Obama) you can definitely see a trend there, I think. Ideas tend to be part of the "selling points" as well - they gloss over teh details with lots of talking points and clever phrases and sound bytes (Hermain Cain again comes to mind here.)
And when you compare Romney to alot of the other candidates (like say, Herman Cain.) you can see alot of that as well. Frankly, it just shows how American voters vote more by their guts than by their brains, and that is one thing that concerns me about the upcoming elections.
Huntsman, having approximately zero percent chance of winning the GOP nomination (I believe he consistently polls in the single-digits,) can afford to put out bold plans like this. With that being said, nobody will have to "scream hellfire and brimstone" over it for that very same reason.
Connor MacLeod wrote:I was reading today how Mitt Romney does well in certain ways with Republican voters but they find him too "aloof" or lacking wamrth or fear he's not 'Republican' enough. I found that rather interesting because it really shows you what ultimately gets votes in the system we have - basically unless you can 'sell' yourself or look flashy or charismatic, you probably aren't going to win the voters. Looking back from Reagen onwards, (and hell Obama) you can definitely see a trend there, I think. Ideas tend to be part of the "selling points" as well - they gloss over teh details with lots of talking points and clever phrases and sound bytes (Hermain Cain again comes to mind here.)
And when you compare Romney to alot of the other candidates (like say, Herman Cain.) you can see alot of that as well. Frankly, it just shows how American voters vote more by their guts than by their brains, and that is one thing that concerns me about the upcoming elections.
While I agree with the overall point regarding our voting trends, Romney the specific individual is more-or-less a handsome charmer who'd probably be garnering fewer vague objections and doing a lot better here than he is in the polls if he was the "right" religion (one of the other huge problems with our voting trends).
"Do I really look like a guy with a plan? Y'know what I am? I'm a dog chasing cars. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it! Y'know, I just do things..." --The Joker
I have a feeling, and I know I'm not the only one, that Huntsman is running this campaign with a firm eye on 2016. He wants the Republicans to crash and burn badly this time, so he can come out in 2016 and say "See what you guys did the last time? The country has not improved* since then and it's because you nominated THOSE guys before me. I am your saviour!". Might just work, too.
*Not saying the economy won't improve, but a) they will play fast and loose with numbers and b) The Euro time bomb may go off in the next four years leading to further economic chaos.
Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies,
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earth-bound misfit, I
UnderAGreySky wrote:I have a feeling, and I know I'm not the only one, that Huntsman is running this campaign with a firm eye on 2016. He wants the Republicans to crash and burn badly this time, so he can come out in 2016 and say "See what you guys did the last time? The country has not improved* since then and it's because you nominated THOSE guys before me. I am your saviour!". Might just work, too.
*Not saying the economy won't improve, but a) they will play fast and loose with numbers and b) The Euro time bomb may go off in the next four years leading to further economic chaos.
Huntsman is a smart dude, and I think he knows he won't pick up 2012's nomination at this point. I very much hope he runs again in 2016, because I agree that he'll be in a stronger position then.
Agitated asshole | (Ex)40K Nut | Metalhead The vision never dies; life's a never-ending wheel
1337 posts as of 16:34 GMT-7 June 2nd, 2003
"'He or she' is an agenderphobic microaggression, Sharon. You are a bigot." ― Randy Marsh
Correct me if I'm wrong, here, but...isn't Huntsman the only Republican candidate who flat-out said that creationism is not a valid idea? He's my favored candidate for that reason alone.
So, not a militarist, not a religious nutjob... sounds like a sensible person. Who miserably fails in Republican polls.
I doubt the Republican electorate will change from crazy religious and secular imperialists and mysoginist patriarchal social darwininsts to the category known as 'sensible people' in four years between 2012 and 2016. So Huntsman will fail again in 2016, don't count on anything else. Unless the Republican party implodes (a nice turn of events for sure).
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...
...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Stas Bush wrote:So, not a militarist, not a religious nutjob... sounds like a sensible person. Who miserably fails in Republican polls.
I doubt the Republican electorate will change from crazy religious and secular imperialists and mysoginist patriarchal social darwininsts to the category known as 'sensible people' in four years between 2012 and 2016. So Huntsman will fail again in 2016, don't count on anything else. Unless the Republican party implodes (a nice turn of events for sure).
It's still a better strategy for him, assuming he wants to become President of the United States. There's a chance that in five years the Republicans will be looking for someone a bit less flaky; there's no chance they'll be looking for that someone today.
Stas Bush wrote:So, not a militarist, not a religious nutjob... sounds like a sensible person. Who miserably fails in Republican polls.
I doubt the Republican electorate will change from crazy religious and secular imperialists and mysoginist patriarchal social darwininsts to the category known as 'sensible people' in four years between 2012 and 2016. So Huntsman will fail again in 2016, don't count on anything else. Unless the Republican party implodes (a nice turn of events for sure).
Frankly, I suspect it's less of the "Republican electorate" and more of the "Republican core" which is most heavily involved in the nomination process.
If a crazy Republican wins and blows up the country, the backlash from the moderate elements of the party could be enough that we may see what we haven't seen in a very long time in America: A sitting president getting his nomination challenged by his own party.
That being said - given what a mess the Republican party is right now - I'm betting on an Obama win and even more nastiness for the next four years as the "core" thinks they need to be even MOAR CONSERVATIVE to win. Which may also again hopefully trigger a backlash from the moderate elements of the party to step back in and point out that the congressional gains last election (really the only thing that gives the nutjobs any credibility) weren't the result of being MOAR CONSERVATIVE via the Tea Party, but simple plain dissatisfaction against the Democratic party.
I worry about the direction of the republican party. They drift right with every loss as a way of "energizing the base", and the Democrats follow them because they are wusses. On the one hand, they simply cannot win elections in this state, which I'm okay with. On the other hand, because they pull the Democrats with them, they don't have to win to have their agenda fulfilled. A moderate Republican who stands to actually get elected is probably less effective than insane candidates who will lose, because a Republican president can be legally opposed. A group of crazies who are loud enough to write the narrative can make the Democrats fulfill their agenda for them.
It's kind of lose-lose for sane people. Is there anything that can break this cycle?
1980s Rock is to music what Giant Robot shows are to anime
Think about it.
Cruising low in my N-1 blasting phat beats,
showin' off my chrome on them Coruscant streets
Got my 'saber on my belt and my gat by side,
this here yellow plane makes for a sick ride
Molyneux wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, here, but...isn't Huntsman the only Republican candidate who flat-out said that creationism is not a valid idea? He's my favored candidate for that reason alone.
Well, Dr. Paul's answer was more nuanced and so he got stuck with the soundbyte answer of 'Does not accept Evolution'.
"Well, first i thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter," he said. "I think it's a theory...the theory of evolution and I don't accept it as a theory. But I think the creator that i know, you know created us, every one of us and created the universe and the precise time and manner and all. I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side."
- Ron Paul, 2007
"Democracy, too, is a religion. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses." - H.L. Mencken
“An atheist, who is a statist, is just another theist.” – Stefan Molyneux
"If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one." - Robert LeFevre
How is that "stuck with"? He flat out says he doesn't accept evolution.
"Prodesse Non Nocere." "It's all about popularity really, if your invisible friend that tells you to invade places is called Napoleon, you're a loony, if he's called Jesus then you're the president." "I'd drive more people insane, but I'd have to double back and pick them up first..." "All it takes for bullshit to thrive is for rational men to do nothing." - Kevin Farrell, B.A. Journalism. BOTM - EBC - Horseman - G&C - Vampire
Keevan_Colton wrote:How is that "stuck with"? He flat out says he doesn't accept evolution.
I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side.
You cannot see there is a difference in that answer and some Bible-thumper's?
"Democracy, too, is a religion. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses." - H.L. Mencken
“An atheist, who is a statist, is just another theist.” – Stefan Molyneux
"If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one." - Robert LeFevre
Keevan_Colton wrote:How is that "stuck with"? He flat out says he doesn't accept evolution.
I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side.
You cannot see there is a difference in that answer and some Bible-thumper's?
Not really, both are a rejection of science couched in religious terms, hence all his creator bullshit...
...You cannot see the fact they're the same?
"Prodesse Non Nocere." "It's all about popularity really, if your invisible friend that tells you to invade places is called Napoleon, you're a loony, if he's called Jesus then you're the president." "I'd drive more people insane, but I'd have to double back and pick them up first..." "All it takes for bullshit to thrive is for rational men to do nothing." - Kevin Farrell, B.A. Journalism. BOTM - EBC - Horseman - G&C - Vampire
Keevan_Colton wrote:How is that "stuck with"? He flat out says he doesn't accept evolution.
I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side.
You cannot see there is a difference in that answer and some Bible-thumper's?
It's a religious Fundie who is sitting on the fence because he's ignorant of the very basics. Essentially all biologists agree that it occurs, and I'd think the experts would know what's going on. If the evidence weren't strongly supportive of it, most biologists wouldn't support it.
SDNet: Unbelievable levels of pedantry that you can't find anywhere else on the Internet!
Paul seemed rather clear in his answer that his contention to the theory of evolution is that there may be some "invisible hand" that made evolution happen at the exact time and manner said "creator" wanted it to. He is not denying evolution happens.
Jumping the gun and always assuming the worst-case scenario does nothing to lessen the crazy rhetoric, more likely than not it encourages it. If you're gonna be called a Bible Thumper just because you happen to believe that there may be a God out there, then the couple of billion people who do believe in a God may as well say "fuck it" and go religious extremist to shout down the assholes who keep calling them names.
Firstly: I was going solely on that quote; I have neither the time nor inclination at the moment to dig up a nuanced view from Ron Paul on evolution and the teaching thereof.
Secondly: while one can believe whatever the hell one can, I'm rather averse to idiots trying to wrest education away from people who actually know about the subject. And, the fact of the matter is that evolution is, far and away, one of the most well-documented and well-supported facets of modern science. There is no debate, and to pretend that there is at this juncture is, frankly, irresponsible. It's like humoring alchemists or astrologists.
SDNet: Unbelievable levels of pedantry that you can't find anywhere else on the Internet!
Akhlut wrote:Secondly: while one can believe whatever the hell one can, I'm rather averse to idiots trying to wrest education away from people who actually know about the subject. And, the fact of the matter is that evolution is, far and away, one of the most well-documented and well-supported facets of modern science. There is no debate, and to pretend that there is at this juncture is, frankly, irresponsible. It's like humoring alchemists or astrologists.
It is generally a good idea, however, to humor several billion people when it comes to discussing what are ultimately matters of faith. Because again, the backlash is pretty counter-productive.
