Untitled Document

I just added comments to this -- (mrc)

(Truthdig

Live Chat: Robert Scheer on the Financial Crisis
From: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/live_chat_robert_scheer_on_the_financial_crisis_20100415/
Posted on Apr 15, 2010

If you missed Robert Scheer discussing his latest column, the financial meltdown and its enablers with readers or you just want to relive the excitement, you can read a full transcript right here. ( this is a good idea --- mrc)

Robert Scheer discusses his column every Thursday at 3pm PT in a live Q&A.
2:41 Truthdig
April 15, 2010 3:41 PM
Hello. We’re going to start in a little over 15 minutes but feel free to chat until then.

2:47 Comment From GilreathM
April 15, 2010 3:47 PM
Why call it a crisis when it was manufactured?

2:55 Comment From GilreathM
April 15, 2010 3:55 PM
Knowing what happened and having neither the power nor the will (when you have the power) to make it impossible for things like like this to happen is the same as being where we were and doing what we were doing when it happened the first time around.

2:58 Truthdig
April 15, 2010 3:58 PM
We’re about to get started.

3:01 Truthdig
April 15, 2010 3:01 PM
We’re just waiting for Bob to get set up on his computer. Just a minute now.

3:01 Robert Scheer
April 15, 2010 3:01 PM
Hello

3:02 Comment From Guest
April 15, 2010 3:02 PM
hey

3:03 Robert Scheer
April 15, 2010 3:03 PM
It is a crisis for people losing their jobs, homes, people having to pay taxes, children and grandchildren inheriting enormous debt and the fact that it was man-made, rather than ordained by a deity or the forces of nature, makes it far less acceptable because it could have been avoidable.

Note by MRC -- I don't get the importance of "children and grandchildren inheriting enormous debt". After all -- they will also inherit the wealth of this country and the world -- which is a lot more than the debt.

3:03 Robert Scheer
April 15, 2010 3:03 PM
(in response to GilreathM)

3:04 Comment From BarbaraM
April 15, 2010 3:04 PM
Robert, why didn’t anyone heed Falcoln’s warning when it could have mattered?

3:04 Comment From Tony B
April 15, 2010 3:04 PM
Hello Room

3:05 Comment From mrfreeze
April 15, 2010 3:05 PM
Robert, so many of the pundits claim that the banks were “FORCED” to make loans to unqualified buyers. The last time I checked, I’ve never known banks to be forced to do anything.

3:05 Comment From GilreathM
April 15, 2010 3:05 PM
hey

3:05 Robert Scheer
April 15, 2010 3:05 PM
Because Fannie May and Freddie Mac were dispensing tens of millions f dollars in campaign contributions, they went into every congressional district, extolling their claimed accomplishments, the fact is, that this wedding of public power with private greed, turned out to be too much for congress to withstand.

3:06 Robert Scheer
April 15, 2010 3:06 PM
It’s a lot of crap.

3:06 Comment From GilreathM
April 15, 2010 3:06 PM
Fannie and Freedie were not the only dispensers of loans

Note by MRC -- In my humble opinion -- there never was a need for Fannie and Freddie to be set up to buy mortgage loans from banks. This was a goofy scheme to allow the banks to take the money they received from the sale of the mortgage loans and sell more loans. Banks do not need more cash in order to make new loans. They have the right to issue whatever loans they want to, as long as they have good borrowers with collateral (assets and income) enough to pay off the loans. The banks rights to make loans without having money of their own is derived from our Government's Soverign Right to create whatever money this country needs. That right was "outsourced" to the Federal Reserve System ( a large interlocking group of private corporations) in 1913. The Fed. passed on this "right" to their affiliated banks -- big and small.

3:07 Robert Scheer
April 15, 2010 3:07 PM
Fannie May and Freddie Mac were playing catch up to not lose because the banks were going hog wild in packaging these dangerous derivatives. in deed it was the private mortgage broker country wide that conducted the main deal with Fannie May that got them into this racket.

Note by MRC -- Mr. Scheer probably is referring to "Countrywide" -- a large bank with multiple offices

3:07 Comment From mrfreeze
April 15, 2010 3:07 PM
Actually, Fannie and Freddie don’t do loans, do they?

3:07 Robert Scheer
April 15, 2010 3:07 PM
No, they buy them and they either hold them or repackage them, which is how they ended up underwriting 50% of the mortgage debt.

Note by MRC -- They "do loans" in the sense that they buy loans from banks. One could think of them as lending money to the banks who then lend that money to home buyers -- except as stated above -- the banks do not need that money they get from fannie and freddie.

3:08 Comment From GilreathM
April 15, 2010 3:08 PM
so everything is Freddie and Fannie’s fault is what you are saying?

3:08 Robert Scheer
April 15, 2010 3:08 PM
But without what appeared and in fact turned out to be the reality of a government guaranteed (previous word should be "guarantee? -- mrc) for those highly suspect mortgages, the market would not have inflated as fully on its own. What Fannie and Freddie did, was provide legiticemy (legitimacy) to an activity that was inherently illegitimate if only the laws were written correctly.

Note by MRC -- I think "goofy is a much better word than "illegitimate". Certainly there was no law against a bank selling off a loan. There should have been a law that prohibited banks from selling off loans becuse it obviously encouraged and still encourages banks to make trashy loans they intended to sell to Fannie and Freddie. It turned out that these loans (when converetd to derivatives) wound up being the fuel that fed the fire that almost turned tis country to ashes. In my humble opinion -- starting Freddie and Fannie was the dumbest thing this Government has done in my lifetime. By the way, Barney Frank is now trying to tiptoe into controlling this practice by passing laws that would make banks keep 5% of their loans. Isn't that ridiculous? I repeat -- banks do not need Money to make loans -- they can create money.

3:09 Robert Scheer
April 15, 2010 3:09 PM
No.

3:09 Comment From GilreathM
April 15, 2010 3:09 PM
Freedie and Freedie should have written better laws?

3:10 Robert Scheer
April 15, 2010 3:10 PM
What I am saying is that Fannie and Freddie acted in the same spitit, same motivation, same greed, as did the other financial dumas in the private sector. they were essentially private organization traded in the public sector, and the bonuses were tied to their stock price.

3:10 Comment From Guest
April 15, 2010 3:10 PM
The Obama administration seems most reluctant to investigate the political crimes of the Bush administration or the crimes of banking and other financial institutions. It looks like they want to keep a lid on everything.

3:11 Comment From GilreathM
April 15, 2010 3:11 PM
Bush administration crimes didn’t take place overnight. there is still time.

3:11 Robert Scheer
April 15, 2010 3:11 PM
No, Fannie should not have been allowed to lobby in this unrestrained way to prevent better laws from being written. The whole problem here has to do with the power, not only of Fannie and Freddie but of the private sector to prevent laws requiring effective regulation. Armando Falcon, as I wrote in my column, was in fact a de-fanged regulator with severely under-budgeted agency, and as he testified last friday, was only the weakest of regulatory powers.

Note By MRC -- With all due respect -- I think you are mixing up too many things that are not precisely related -- that will, I believe, tend to confuse readers

3:11 Comment From mrfreeze
April 15, 2010 3:11 PM
So, what your saying is the private sector shifted risk to the public sector and then cried foul?

3:11 Robert Scheer

April 15, 2010 3:11 PM

Yes.

Note by MRC -- I am a little confused. Which "private sector" shifted risk to which "public sector" and who "cried foul"? It seems that "fanny and freddie" were curious entities that were ill defined as either "private" or "public". as far as I can tell -- only the public is crying "foul"

3:12 Comment From GilreathM

April 15, 2010 3:12 PM

mrfreeze methinks u’ve got it right

3:12 Robert Scheer

April 15, 2010 3:12 PM

But they couldn’t done it without the greed for a peculiar set of
government beurocrats who parlayed their political power into enormous
personal game. The mixture of the private and the public here was toxic.

NOTE by MRC -- Elected goverment officials and bureaucrats share the blame -- as do many private people who worked for banks and financial organizations that were not quite banks as I understand the word. In fact one of our biggest problems is that we have no good definition of what banks are and are not and what banks can and can't do under our laws. In California and probably in all States -- a company of coropration can only use the word "bank" in its title if it has a State license -- or charter -- or permission to act as a "bank"

3:12 Comment From mrfreeze

April 15, 2010 3:12 PM

Robert, who is holding all the toxic assets now? And what’s ultimately
going to happen to that “fake capital?”

3:13 Robert Scheer

April 15, 2010 3:13 PM

YOU ARE.

3:13 Comment From mrfreeze

April 15, 2010 3:13 PM

Gee Thanks!!!!!!!!

3:13 Comment From GilreathM

April 15, 2010 3:13 PM

no Mr Sheer “we are” YOU own a piece of this too!

NOTE by MRC -- I am frankly unable to see that there are "toxic assets" and/or "fake capital" and that either of those things can be assigned a dollar amount that makes unambiguous sense.

3:13 Robert Scheer

April 15, 2010 3:13 PM

The tax payers, because it is the federal reserve and the treasury
department that have stepped in to guarantee in effect, trillions of
dollars of these toxic derivatives. You, meaning the rest of tax
payers, will ultimately be paying the bill.

NOTE by MRC -- In what sense do you mean "paying the bill". I see a loss of opportunity and some great stupidity. But I do not see a dollar loss that will wind up as an invoice, bill or charge. I believe, but can't prove, that the losses are an insignificant part of our national wealth. It is a shame that the issue can't be otherwise resolved -- but I do not think fair resolution is possible. My conclusion is that are monetary and business laws are inadequate.

3:13 Comment From Debbie McCormick

April 15, 2010 3:13 PM

To your knowledge, did Barney Frank ever acknowledge that Mr. Falcon
was the hero in this mess, or one of them?

3:14 Comment From Bluepunk

April 15, 2010 3:14 PM

What about the change in state laws that allowed these bad loans
“loan-sharking” to go on? Did it not created this time-bomb?

3:15 Robert Scheer

April 15, 2010 3:15 PM

No, not to my knowledge and I believe that Barnie frank, acted in a
totally shameful and otherwise irresponsible manner, as regards Falcon.
He and a number of other progressive, including Maxine Waters, from
California, claimed to be protecting the interests of working and poor
people and expanding affordable housing, but in fact allowed a
situation in which the most vulnerable people in society, were the
ultimate tragic victims, losing life savings, homes and their jobs.

NOTE from MRC -- I agree with the above. In my opinion, Barney Frank shows a very lively mind -- but he often acts stupidly.

3:15 Comment From mrfreeze

April 15, 2010 3:15 PM

The one commentator mentioned above that the Obama Administration is
trying to keep a lid on any substantiative investigations of these
crimes. I think that’s a mis-characterization of the president. I would
like to know what can really be done to prevent this activity in the
future. What do you think?

3:16 Robert Scheer

April 15, 2010 3:16 PM

(responding to Bluepunk) Your absolutely correct that the preemption of
state lending laws in all areas - housing, credit cards, etc, demanding
by the financial industry, lobbyist in Washington, destroyed consumer
protections that existed in any state, including CA where I happen to
reside.

3:17 Comment From Guest

April 15, 2010 3:17 PM

We know that crimes were committed.
What’s being done about it?

3:18 Robert Scheer

April 15, 2010 3:18 PM

well I think that Fannie and Freddie should not be allowed to go back
to business as usual and that we do need a public mechanism for
creating liquidity in the housing market,

Note by MRC -- there is no need -- beyond our Constitution and our Sovereign Right to create money -- for "liquidity" anywhere --
The government has the right to creat any amount of money as long as it does not exceed the natural wealth of the country.

we do generally accept that
access to housing is desirable, a source of stability and indeed
justice in our country, but it should be done, as we are now doing,
thanks to Obama, with student loans, taking the profit out for it to be
a straightforward accounting procedure. Fannie and Freddie should not
be allowed to make more and they were allowed to make 15 million more
than they should have.

NOTE by MRC -- I am tempted to say that our laws should be updated and corected to eliminated future problems -- but I do not think that is the best way -- because almost none of us understand how our present Money and Banking system works. I think we, as a Nation. should first come up with a booklet that explains how our money and banking system works. It probably could be done in 200 pages or so. If everyone agreed that the description is fair and acurate -- laws could be written that would be the law of the land. Such a plan would mean that wrogdoers up to this point would not be punished -- but that would be a small price to pay if it would tend to limit problems in the future. It would be something like the reconcilation in South Africa where, as I understand it, past sins were forgiven.

3:18 Comment From Debbie McCormick

April 15, 2010 3:18 PM

When you say we tax payers will pay the bill, what do you mean
exactly? What will that look like?

3:18 Comment From GilreathM

April 15, 2010 3:18 PM

If the States failed to protect their citizens what exactly was the
Federal Gov’t to do in this instant? I really want to know.

3:20 Comment From Ian

April 15, 2010 3:20 PM

I spend a lot of time reading Simon Johnson on Baseline Scenario as
well as reading Christopher Hedges on this site. To different degrees
they both see the influence of financial corporations (Fannie Mae ext.)
as the cause and as a roadblock to meaningful reform. Do you feel that
this congress can actually produce legislation that will have a
meaningful effect.

NOTE BY MRC -- In my opinion LEGISLATION would fail -- if we FIRST did not have a short text book (high school Level??) -- that explains how our present money and banking system works

3:20 Robert Scheer

April 15, 2010 3:20 PM

First of all, we are already paying the bill because the economy has
suffered as a consequence of the balloon bursting. WE’re run up our
deficit in order to prevent further collapse. The overall debt has
increased dramatically. But what i was alluding to was that the federal
reserve and treasure have assumed an enormous suspect of collateral
mortgage obligations, and those obligations are continuing to go sour
as the foreclosure rate has increased rather than decline and housing
prices have tanked.

NOTE BY MRC -- I do not see how the previous paragraph says anything about how we are "already paying the bill"

3:21 Robert Scheer

April 15, 2010 3:21 PM

The only reason we have a chance of getting decent legislation is
because the public is aroused and we have a narrow window here in which
the president and leader of congress of both parties might feel
sufficient heat that they will turn against the lobbyist from which
they otherwise seem to slavishly serve.

NOTE BY MRC -- I don't want to repeat myself -- but I think there is currently ZERO CHANCE of good legislation.
But a fair chance of the publication of a good textbook on "Money and Banking"

3:22 Truthdig

April 15, 2010 3:22 PM

Repeating GilreathM’s question: If the States failed to protect their
citizens what exactly was the Federal Gov’t to do in this instant? I
really want to know.

3:23 Comment From mrfreeze

April 15, 2010 3:23 PM

Robert, your article points out, once again, that there were a number
of “whistle blowers” from many different fields that predicted (or at
least worried) about the housing crisis. What is it about our system
that so squelches their voices?

NOTE BY MRC -- Fear, ego and incompetence by elected officials and bureaucrats.
Everybody in power has something to lose if the truth is found out. That is what stops most reform movements.

3:24 Robert Scheer

April 15, 2010 3:24 PM

I believe it would be wise to restore the right of the states to
protect the consumers. In California for example, we have had
constitutional restriction on by scripture, incidentally. But those
restrictions are no longer in effect because of Federal preemption. I
think the power of the lobbyist over the federal government is too
strong to expect congress to protect ordinary consumes. we’d be much
better of with notion of state’s rights envisioned by founding fathers,
where state legislators and governments had the power to protect the
voters who are physically closer to them and is the case with
washington politicians.

3:24 Robert Scheer

April 15, 2010 3:24 PM

Responding to mrfreeze

3:26 Truthdig

April 15, 2010 3:26 PM

We’ve got about 5 questions in
the pipe. We’re going to stagger them to make the answers clearer.
Sorry for the delay, we’ll try to get to everyone.

3:27 Comment From GilreathM

April 15, 2010 3:27 PM

What kind of answer is that? Individual states used to have
laws against usury but even those laws have gone the way of the dodo.

3:28 Comment From Samuel the Brave

April 15, 2010 3:28 PM

Hi Robert—big fan of your work. Are you at all optimistic that Obama
can enact anything like effective change when it comes to reforming the
financial industry?

3:29 Robert Scheer

April 15, 2010 3:29 PM

I dont know if there were many, there was the
wonderful Brooksley Bourne, who has chaired the commodity futures
regulation strongly sounded alarmed at the entire derivitates market
was in deep trouble. there is mr. falcon, who attempted to regulate
Fannie and Freddie, but most people who knew better kept silent out of
concern for their careers, or were being paid off by the lobbyist, in
the form of campaign contributions or future job oppportunities. Take
the case of Enron, where wendy Gramm, who proceeded Brooksely Bourne as
the commodities regulator, and whose husband, Phil Gramm, pushed
through the law, preventing any, any regulation, of the commodities of
the derivates market, went to work as a member of the board and chair
of the audit committee board of directors of Enron. The revolving door
between government and the big corporations is employed by
both democrats and republicans ad the result is that there
are very few whistle blowers to protect the public interest. when they
do dare to stand up to the consumer, as Bourne and falcon did, they are
quenched by their superiors in the government. Tiothy Geitner and
Lawrence Summers come to mind, who are running dogs of the large
corporations.

NOTE BY MRC -- the name is Born -- Not Bourne

3:29 Comment From Richard Nixon

April 15, 2010 3:29 PM

There voices are squelched for the same reasons they always have been,
people don’t want to look at the truth when it is negative.

NOTE BY MRC -- especially the guity or anybody that has something to lose

3:30 Robert Scheer

April 15, 2010 3:30 PM

yes, but only if there is a
far larger public outcry.

3:30 Robert Scheer

April 15, 2010 3:30 PM

(to sam)

3:30 Comment From Bluepunk

April 15, 2010 3:30 PM

So if it was at the state level, and the county level where
foreclosures are fought over, then that is where the problem is
at...? Are we ready to fill in the holes with good laws and
investigate our own state and local leaders?

3:31 Robert Scheer

April 15, 2010 3:31 PM

Bluepunk: We have a better
shot at controlling politicians on the state level than we do
federally, which is the wisdom that founders of this country grasped.

NOTE by MRC -- THAT IS PROBABLY TRUE -- but still a very difficult task. There are lots of related laws enshrined in case law -- that would be difficult to change

3:31 Comment From Debbie McCormick

April 15, 2010 3:31 PM

Besides pelting the president, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid with emails
supporting financial reform, what should we be doing to help?

NOTE by MRC- Writing to Pelosi and Reed are unlikely to help. Has there ever been case where common people fixed a major problem by letters?

3:32 Robert Scheer

April 15, 2010 3:32 PM

We should be in those emails
and letters, wanting Obama, not to fall for the advice of his key
economic advisors, particularly Summers and Geitner, who got us into
this mess, who were playing the same role in the Clinton
administration. He should turn to Joseph Stigleitz and Reisch and other
well-intentioned economists who know exactly what should be done.

NOTE by MRC -- I hate to be picky -- but there is no "s" in Reich

3:32 Comment From Kafka

April 15, 2010 3:32 PM

Just a question: why is the US unable to hold its ‘elected’ oficials to
confront an international war tribunal?

3:33 Robert Scheer

April 15, 2010 3:33 PM

We’ll answer that in a
subsequent column and I have to go get something to eat

3:33 Truthdig

April 15, 2010 3:33 PM

OK thanks everyone

3:33 Robert Scheer

April 15, 2010 3:33 PM

see you next week!

3:33 Truthdig

April 15, 2010 3:33 PM

Thanks Robert

3:33 Truthdig

April 15, 2010 3:33 PM

We’ll be back next week

3:33 Comment From GilreathM

April 15, 2010 3:33 PM

I hear a lot about states rights but I never hear about states
responsibilities. Why is it that everybody wants their rights
but nobody wants the responsibilities that go with rights?

3:33 Comment From Debbie McCormick

April 15, 2010 3:33 PM

thank you!

3:34 Comment From GilreathM

April 15, 2010 3:34 PM

bye

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2010 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
Web site development by Hop Studios | Hosted by NEXCESS.NET)

Truthdig

Live Chat: Robert Scheer on the Financial Crisis
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/live_chat_robert_scheer_on_the_financial_crisis_20100415/
Posted on Apr 15, 2010

If you missed Robert Scheer discussing his latest column, the financial meltdown and its enablers with readers or you just want to relive the excitement, you can read a full transcript right here.

2:47 Comment From GilreathM
April 15, 2010 3:47 PM
Why call it a crisis when it was manufactured?

2:58 Truthdig
April 15, 2010 3:58 PM
We’re about to get started.

3:01 Truthdig
April 15, 2010 3:01 PM
We’re just waiting for Bob to get set up on his computer. Just a minute now.

3:01 Robert Scheer
April 15, 2010 3:01 PM
Hello

3:02 Comment From Guest
April 15, 2010 3:02 PM
hey

3:03 Robert Scheer
April 15, 2010 3:03 PM
(in response to GilreathM)

3:04 Comment From BarbaraM
April 15, 2010 3:04 PM
Robert, why didn’t anyone heed Falcoln’s warning when it could have mattered?

3:04 Comment From Tony B
April 15, 2010 3:04 PM
Hello Room

3:05 Comment From GilreathM
April 15, 2010 3:05 PM
hey

3:06 Robert Scheer
April 15, 2010 3:06 PM
It’s a lot of crap.

3:06 Comment From GilreathM
April 15, 2010 3:06 PM
Fannie and Freedie were not the only dispensers of loans

3:07 Comment From mrfreeze
April 15, 2010 3:07 PM
Actually, Fannie and Freddie don’t do loans, do they?

3:07 Robert Scheer
April 15, 2010 3:07 PM
No, they buy them and they either hold them or repackage them, which is how they ended up underwriting 50% of the mortgage debt.

3:08 Comment From GilreathM
April 15, 2010 3:08 PM
so everything is Freddie and Fannie’s fault is what you are saying?

3:08 Robert Scheer
April 15, 2010 3:08 PM
But without what appeared and in fact turned out to be the reality of a government guaranteed for those highly suspect mortgages, the market would not have inflated as fully on its own. What Fannie and Freddie did, was provide legiticemy to an activity that was inherently illegitimate if only the laws were written correctly.

3:09 Robert Scheer
April 15, 2010 3:09 PM
No.

3:09 Comment From GilreathM
April 15, 2010 3:09 PM
Freedie and Freedie should have written better laws?

3:11 Comment From GilreathM
April 15, 2010 3:11 PM
Bush administration crimes didn’t take place overnight. there is still time.

3:11 Comment From mrfreeze
April 15, 2010 3:11 PM
So, what your saying is the private sector shifted risk to the public sector and then cried foul?

3:11 Robert Scheer

April 15, 2010 3:11 PM

Yes.

3:12 Comment From GilreathM

April 15, 2010 3:12 PM

mrfreeze methinks u’ve got it right

3:12 Robert Scheer

April 15, 2010 3:12 PM

3:12 Comment From mrfreeze

April 15, 2010 3:12 PM

Robert, who is holding all the toxic assets now? And what’s ultimately
going to happen to that “fake capital?”

3:13 Robert Scheer

April 15, 2010 3:13 PM

YOU ARE.

3:13 Comment From mrfreeze

April 15, 2010 3:13 PM

Gee Thanks!!!!!!!!

3:13 Comment From GilreathM

April 15, 2010 3:13 PM

no Mr Sheer “we are” YOU own a piece of this too!

3:13 Robert Scheer

April 15, 2010 3:13 PM

3:13 Comment From Debbie McCormick

April 15, 2010 3:13 PM

To your knowledge, did Barney Frank ever acknowledge that Mr. Falcon
was the hero in this mess, or one of them?

3:14 Comment From Bluepunk

April 15, 2010 3:14 PM

What about the change in state laws that allowed these bad loans
“loan-sharking” to go on? Did it not created this time-bomb?

3:15 Robert Scheer

April 15, 2010 3:15 PM

3:15 Comment From mrfreeze

April 15, 2010 3:15 PM

3:16 Robert Scheer

April 15, 2010 3:16 PM

3:17 Comment From Guest

April 15, 2010 3:17 PM

We know that crimes were committed.
What’s being done about it?

3:18 Robert Scheer

April 15, 2010 3:18 PM

well I think that Fannie and Freddie should not be allowed to go back
to business as usual and that we do need a public mechanism for
creating liquidity in the housing market, we do generally accept that
access to housing is desirable, a source of stability and indeed
justice in our country, but it should be done, as we are now doing,
thanks to Obama, with student loans, taking the profit out for it to be
a straightforward accounting procedure. Fannie and Freddie should not
be allowed to make more and they were allowed to make 15 million more
than they should have.

3:18 Comment From Debbie McCormick

April 15, 2010 3:18 PM

When you say we tax payers will pay the bill, what do you mean
exactly? What will that look like?

3:18 Comment From GilreathM

April 15, 2010 3:18 PM

If the States failed to protect their citizens what exactly was the
Federal Gov’t to do in this instant? I really want to know.

3:20 Comment From Ian

April 15, 2010 3:20 PM

3:20 Robert Scheer

April 15, 2010 3:20 PM

3:21 Robert Scheer

April 15, 2010 3:21 PM

3:22 Truthdig

April 15, 2010 3:22 PM

Repeating GilreathM’s question: If the States failed to protect their
citizens what exactly was the Federal Gov’t to do in this instant? I
really want to know.

3:23 Comment From mrfreeze

April 15, 2010 3:23 PM

3:24 Robert Scheer

April 15, 2010 3:24 PM

3:24 Robert Scheer

April 15, 2010 3:24 PM

Responding to mrfreeze

3:26 Truthdig

April 15, 2010 3:26 PM

We’ve got about 5 questions in
the pipe. We’re going to stagger them to make the answers clearer.
Sorry for the delay, we’ll try to get to everyone.

3:27 Comment From GilreathM

April 15, 2010 3:27 PM

What kind of answer is that? Individual states used to have
laws against usury but even those laws have gone the way of the dodo.

3:28 Comment From Samuel the Brave

April 15, 2010 3:28 PM

Hi Robert—big fan of your work. Are you at all optimistic that Obama
can enact anything like effective change when it comes to reforming the
financial industry?

3:29 Robert Scheer

April 15, 2010 3:29 PM

3:29 Comment From Richard Nixon

April 15, 2010 3:29 PM

There voices are squelched for the same reasons they always have been,
people don’t want to look at the truth when it is negative.

3:30 Robert Scheer

April 15, 2010 3:30 PM

yes, but only if there is a
far larger public outcry.

3:30 Robert Scheer

April 15, 2010 3:30 PM

(to sam)

3:30 Comment From Bluepunk

April 15, 2010 3:30 PM

3:31 Robert Scheer

April 15, 2010 3:31 PM

Bluepunk: We have a better
shot at controlling politicians on the state level than we do
federally, which is the wisdom that founders of this country grasped.

3:31 Comment From Debbie McCormick

April 15, 2010 3:31 PM

Besides pelting the president, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid with emails
supporting financial reform, what should we be doing to help?

3:32 Robert Scheer

April 15, 2010 3:32 PM

3:32 Comment From Kafka

April 15, 2010 3:32 PM

Just a question: why is the US unable to hold its ‘elected’ oficials to
confront an international war tribunal?

3:33 Robert Scheer

April 15, 2010 3:33 PM

We’ll answer that in a
subsequent column and I have to go get something to eat

3:33 Truthdig

April 15, 2010 3:33 PM

OK thanks everyone

3:33 Robert Scheer

April 15, 2010 3:33 PM

see you next week!

3:33 Truthdig

April 15, 2010 3:33 PM

Thanks Robert

3:33 Truthdig

April 15, 2010 3:33 PM

We’ll be back next week

3:33 Comment From GilreathM

April 15, 2010 3:33 PM

I hear a lot about states rights but I never hear about states
responsibilities. Why is it that everybody wants their rights
but nobody wants the responsibilities that go with rights?

3:33 Comment From Debbie McCormick

April 15, 2010 3:33 PM

thank you!

3:34 Comment From GilreathM

April 15, 2010 3:34 PM

bye