This is amazing to me. On the very day that the SEC begins an investigation of Goldman Sachs for fraud in the recent financial crisis, the Republicans st..."/>

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Republicans unanimous in opposition to financial reform

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Thursday, November 10, 2022 08:12
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1133
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, April 17, 2010 7:52 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


This is amazing to me. On the very day that the SEC begins an investigation of Goldman Sachs for fraud in the recent financial crisis, the Republicans stand up and state they will unanimously oppose Wall Street Reform. How crazy ARE they, exactly? Or are they crazy like foxes, using every tactic to achieve their own agenda: Money!
Quote:

All 41 Senate Republicans Oppose Financial Reform Bill, Say Will Lead To 'Endless Taxpayer Bailouts'

Every member of the Senate Republican Caucus has signed a letter, delivered to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, expressing opposition to the Democrats' financial regulatory reform bill, which they all claim will lead to more Wall Street bailouts.

"We are united in our opposition to the partisan legislation reported by the Senate Banking Committee," the letter reads. "As currently constructed, this bill allows for endless taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street and establishes new and unlimited regulatory powers that will stifle small businesses and community banks."

As of last night, 40 of the Senate's 41 Republicans had signed the letter. The lone holdout, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), said yesterday that she opposed the legislation but hadn't yet decided whether to sign, and it's not clear what convinced her.

Though the letter is unequivocal about the GOP's opposition to the bill, it does not contain an explicit threat to use the Senate rules to block debate on the bill, if Reid tries to bring it to the floor.

But though the letter does not draw that particular bright line, it markedly stiffens the caucus' position. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell made waves Tuesday by blasting the Dems' proposal, claiming it would institutionalize taxpayer funded bailouts of Wall Street. The assertion was widely disputed by both Democrats and experts, and more than 24 hours later, several Republicans were unwilling to endorse McConnell's take. One of them, Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), even suggested GOP leadership should tone down its rhetoric and try to reach consensus with Democrats.

Now, it seems, they've all decided to endorse that line.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/all-41-senate-republicans-o
ppose-financial-reform-bill-say-will-lead-to-endless-taxpayer-bailouts.php


Republican message guru Frank Luntz has put together a playbook to help derail financial regulatory reform. He’s the genius behind many Republican talking points which have misled the public and been successful.
Quote:

Democrats this week seized on parallels between Republican attacks on the financial regulation bill and a 17-page memo drafted in January by Republican wordsmith Frank Luntz designed to give the GOP the language to kill the Obama effort.

Republicans say nonsense, but the echo is there.

“A vote in favor of creating a permanent bailout fund for private companies is like committing hari-kari,” Luntz wrote. “Frankly, the single best way to kill any legislation is to link it to the Big Bank Bailout.”

On Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) went to the Senate floor to declare, “This bill not only allows for taxpayer-funded bailouts of Wall Street banks, it institutionalizes them.”

In his “Words That Work” advice, Luntz wrote: “If there is one thing we can all agree on, it’s that the bad decisions and harmful policies by Washington bureaucrats that in many ways led to the economic crash that must never be repeated.”

McConnell said: “If there is one thing Americans agree on when it comes to financial reform, it is absolutely certain they agree on this: Never again–never again–should taxpayers be expected to bail out Wall Street from its own mistakes.”

Luntz advised opponents stress the federal government’s role.

McConnell singled out Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Federal Reserve Board, Treasury and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. …

Luntz said voter skepticism is based on “the simple belief the government cannot effectively regulate the financial markets at any level.”

McConnell said the Senate legislation “gives the government a backdoor mechanism for propping up failing or failed institutions.”

Such parallels moved Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.) to enter the Luntz memo into the Congressional Record, a permanent chronicle of Congress, including the financial regulation debate.

“My father would have been proud that has son would have written a document worthy of the congressional record,” Luntz wrote in an email Thursday from Brussels, where his London-bound plane was diverted to avoid volcanic ash from Iceland. “I do think Republican opposition to bigger government and yet another bureaucracy is exactly where America stands right now.”

Don Stewart, a spokesman and speech writer for McConnell, said neither he nor the senator had even heard of the Luntz memo until Dodd’s attack.

“It doesn’t take a genius to realize people don’t like bailouts,” he said.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/04/15/an-echo-in-the-senate-chamber/

Luntz’s instructions to connect financial reform to bank bailouts can be heard everywhere; like good little marionettes, their mouths move in almost perfect unison: “means endless taxpayer bailouts”, “institutionalizes bailouts” “guarantee future bailouts”...listen to them and you’ll hear it over and over.

Why do they oppose financial reform? Well, we already know most of the answers:
Quote:

Listening to Republican senators mouth scripted lines opposing financial regulatory reforms is to hear them auditioning for jobs as industry lobbyists after Congress.

Their eyes are locked on the next paycheck, not the recovery of the U.S. financial system in the wake of a devastating recession and near collapse of the economy.

The New York Times tallied 70 former members of Congress hired by the financial-services industry, including the former Republican chair of the House Banking Committee.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky leads a chorus suggesting that legislation before the Senate and passed by the House would only invite more bank bailouts in the future. Instead, he insists upon — well, nothing.

McConnell and his colleagues do not offer any suggestions or ideas about how to rein in the most reckless — and lucrative — behavior by commercial and investment banks.

Nor do Republicans offer any leadership in providing American consumers and investors with trustworthy, accessible information about investment products, and their hazards to the treasury. How or why the GOP would oppose such elementary transparency must puzzle voters.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorials/2011627526_edit18bank
.html?prmid=op_ed


Of course they offer no leadership themselves, they want to PROTECT the status quo! It’s all so transparent and easy to understand; why do people never think this stuff out for themselves?
Quote:

Wary of impending reforms following the financial crisisr, the financial sector — whose irresponsible behavior was a major factor in causing the global recession — donated heavily to members of both parties during last year’s election cycle. In all, the financial, insurance, and real estate industries (collectively known as “FIRE”) donated $476 million to federal campaigns in 2008, dwarfing nearly every other sector.
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/08/big-banks-republicans/

And of course, the Wall Street lobbyists are out in strength:
Quote:

Even as the financial industry has sought to keep a low public profile, some of the country's largest banks have ramped up their spending on lobbying to fight off some of the stiffest regulatory proposals pending in Congress.

Lobbying expenditures jumped 12% from 2008 to $29.8 million last year among the eight banks and private equity firms that spent the most to influence legislation, according to data compiled from disclosure forms filed with Congress.

The biggest spender was JPMorgan Chase & Co., whose lobbying budget rose 12% to $6.2 million, enough for the firm to have more than 30 lobbyists working for it. Among other banks, spending on lobbying rose 27% at Wells Fargo & Co. and 16% at Morgan Stanley.

"I have never seen such a scrum of bank lobbyists as I have in the last year -- and I've worked on quite a few bank issues over the years," said Ed Mierzwinski, a lobbyist for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a coalition of state consumer organizations. "It seems like everybody is out of work except for bank lobbyists."

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/16/business/la-fi-bank-lobbying16
-2010feb16


Is all this going to work yet again? Are Americans going to let themselves be manipulated yet again by talking points, disinformation, just plain lies and messages crafted to be misleading?


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 17, 2010 10:16 AM

OUT2THEBLACK


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
...This is amazing to me. On the very day that the SEC begins an investigation of Goldman Sachs for fraud in the recent financial crisis...

...Is all this going to work yet again? Are Americans going to let themselves be manipulated yet again by talking points, disinformation, just plain lies and messages crafted to be misleading?





Yep .

What part is amazing ?

That the same 'SEC' that turned a blind eye to Madoff making off with scores of BILLIONS despite the alarms of whistleblowere , didn't rein in Goldman Sachs ; or that Folk keep trusting 'the government' to rein in the MONEY POWER that controls THEM ?

What amazes me is that Folk believe that taking a partisan side is going to help...


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 17, 2010 10:35 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Unfortunately, actually reading the legislation to find out what it does is nearly impossible, as it's 1336 pages and even more opaque than most bills.

http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/ChairmansMark31510AYO10306_xml
FinancialReformLegislationBill.pdf


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 17, 2010 11:47 AM

WHOZIT


Quote:

Originally posted by out2theblack:
Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
...This is amazing to me. On the very day that the SEC begins an investigation of Goldman Sachs for fraud in the recent financial crisis...

...Is all this going to work yet again? Are Americans going to let themselves be manipulated yet again by talking points, disinformation, just plain lies and messages crafted to be misleading?



"Rolling Stone" is no longger "alterinive media", they are now MSM. So what ever they print can not be trusted.....and they're stupid.

Yep .

What part is amazing ?

That the same 'SEC' that turned a blind eye to Madoff making off with scores of BILLIONS despite the alarms of whistleblowere , didn't rein in Goldman Sachs ; or that Folk keep trusting 'the government' to rein in the MONEY POWER that controls THEM ?

What amazes me is that Folk believe that taking a partisan side is going to help...

[/QUO

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 17, 2010 2:40 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


I'm 100% behind the GOP if they're opposing Gov't take over of our economy.


Summer Glau can simply walk into Mordor


Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 17, 2010 5:33 PM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
I'm 100% behind the GOP...



On everything, no matter what.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 17, 2010 6:04 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


No, no, no, the CORPORATIONS...he's behind the CORPORATIONS...the GOP is just their wholly-owned subsidiary.

Amazing some can be so blind they'd back the GOP in keeping Wall Street rich and planning the next crash to make themselves RICHER! Well, considering the source, yeah, not so amazing...


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 17, 2010 6:33 PM

SHINYGOODGUY


What's amazing to me is the Tea Party set and others who blindly follow the GOP in lockstep when it was they who were in power (thumping the bible in one hand, while reaching into your pockets with the other hand) and allowed, no, orhestrated the near economic collapse.

As long as their pockets were filled, who cared?
It was, as it is now, their railing against Government regulation of the financial institutions, namely the banks and their "governing" bodies, that got us into this mess. And we, the little guy, we're caught bending over collectively holding our ankles.

HOW SOON THEY FORGET: It was the GOP "leadership," that fostered and championed the bailouts, as they were the majority in both houses for much of Bush's 2 terms, and were ousted by the disgruntled and economically disenfranchised.
Does anyone remember the big todo about the Republicans losing seats all over the country, much like the democrats, back when. So yes, I know the democrats are not without blame for our country's woes.

But the GOP has done some selling job on the poor slobs who believe that returning the country to the GOP "leadership" is the solution. Does anyone remember them being voted out for doing a lousy job of it to begin with not more than 2 years ago? Are the every day folk of this country so blinded by their hate for anything remotely democratic that they completely abandon their logic, recent memory and common sense.

Well it's that self-same deregulation of the financial marketplace and so on, that has us grabbing our ankles at present. And we are getting it but good, we are getting it deep, hard and dry folks. So, all in favor of lining the pockets of our bankers and such - form a line. The good times, they are a coming - for Mr. Goldman Sachs and company. Get the KY jelly ready.


SGG

Tawabawho?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 17, 2010 8:00 PM

FREMDFIRMA



Yep, and I have concerns about another Mario Buda with bright ideas... something which I think is all but a matter of time.

Remember folks, we Anarchists have a much longer history of opposing these shitheads, and getting our asses kicked for it while a gullible populace cheers - than any other faction in this country.

I think what Buda did was pretty horrific, but we've always known who the real bad guys are.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 18, 2010 6:16 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:No, no, no, the CORPORATIONS...he's behind the CORPORATIONS...the GOP is just their wholly-owned subsidiary.

Amazing some can be so blind they'd back the GOP in keeping Wall Street rich and planning the next crash to make themselves RICHER! Well, considering the source, yeah, not so amazing...




And you don't think the Dimocrats are wholly owned by the trial lawyers and workers unions ?

Again, I say "wow".






Summer Glau can simply walk into Mordor




Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 18, 2010 6:57 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


No, Crappy, I don't. Prove it. We KNOW the Republican party is preferred by the rich and corporations, we know the Democratic party is preferred by most unions; beyond that, you don't know if your point is valid, it's just what you believe.

Can anyone find anything on what occupations/professions are mostly democrat v. which are mostly republican? I can't, I tried, and Iwould find it very interesting to find out.


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 19, 2010 3:55 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


And you don't think the Dimocrats are wholly owned by the trial lawyers and workers unions ?


Really? Trial Lawyers? Who knew?

The working stiff and unions I could see, but trial lawyers?

I learn something new everyday. That's what I love about this site. Preach it, brother, preach it!


SGG

Tawabawho?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 19, 2010 4:54 AM

BYTEMITE


I don't care what the talking heads are saying. What does the BILL say?

I'm going to go look it up.

(grumble grumble partisanism grumble politics)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 19, 2010 5:00 AM

BYTEMITE


I found a summary. It's from the senate banking committee that appears to have formulated the Bill in the first place (which I add may introduce bias, so watch for that).

Let's all read it together and make up our own minds.

http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/FinancialReformDiscussionDraft
111009.pdf

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 19, 2010 5:15 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Consumer Financial Protection Agency: Creates an independent watchdog to ensure American consumers get the clear, accurate information they need to shop for mortgages, credit cards, and other financial products, while prohibiting hidden fees, abusive terms, and deceptive practices.


... Aren't there services out there that already do this? Also, if they are independent, how do they prohibit hidden fees, abusive terms, and deceptive practices? I mean, it sounds good, but I don't understand how this works. Do we pass laws? Why do we need to pass laws if the public is being provided information on who to avoid doing business with because they're unethical?

Idea of an independent group isn't bad, though, just not fully sure I agree on the implementation...

Quote:

Ends Too Big to Fail: Prevents excessively large or complex financial companies from bringing down the economy by: creating a safe way to shut them down if they fail; imposing tough new capital and leverage requirements and requiring they write their own “funeral plans”; requiring industry to provide their own capital injections; updating the Fed’s lender of last resort authority to allow system-wide support but not prop up individual institutions; and establishing rigorous standards and supervision to protect the economy and American consumers, investors and businesses.



Little wary of that mention of the Feds there, have to think about where they might be coming in and how they might take advantage (because they will, and it's not lost on me that this IS the banking commission). What does "imposing tough new capital and leverage requirements" and "and establishing rigorous standards and supervision to protect the economy and American consumers, investors and businesses" mean?

I like no more bail-outs, though.

Quote:

Protects Against Systemic Risks: Creates an independent agency with a board of regulators to identify and address systemic risks posed by large, complex companies, products, and activities before they threaten the stability of the financial system. The agency could require companies that threaten the economy to divest some of their holdings.


Most conservatives are going to scream bloody murder at that one, but I have to say I like it. Seems like an expansion of anti-trust and anti-monopoly ideas. I've felt for a long time that smaller companies (from big companies divesting their holding) would make for a less cyclical economy. You reduce the highs, but you also reduce the lows, and overall things become more competitive, less stagnant.

Quote:

Single Federal Bank Regulator: Eliminates the convoluted system of multiple federal bank regulators to increase accountability and end unnecessary overlap, conflicting regulation, and “charter shopping;” keeps in place the healthy dual banking system that governs community banks.


*wooshing sound of that going right over my head*

I'll glance over the rest. More later, maybe.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 19, 2010 5:31 AM

BYTEMITE


Okay, here's more specifics on that first point, with a clear outlining of that Consumer Protections Whateverits.

Quote:

Consumer Protections in One Place: Consolidates consumer protection responsibilities currently handled by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Office of Thrift Supervision, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Reserve, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Federal Trade Commission.


Okay... I guess I can see how that might be less bureaucractic, unless it's not. Wasn't Homeland Security supposed to do something similar with FBI, CIA, and NSA?

Quote:

Independent: Led by a 5 member board with an independent director. The Chairman of the Financial Institutions Regulatory Administration will have a seat on the board.


Uh huh. I'm not believing independent unless I see it. Until the parties are dead, either they have to work and live in a bubble, or they have to have the the mental competency of a five year old.

Quote:

A Watchdog with Real Teeth: Unites rule-writing, supervision, and enforcement for consumer protection in a single, stand-alone agency with broad authority to investigate and react to abuses as they develop.


Again, Homeland Security. Why is this sounding less and less good as I go? I'm getting a slick oily feeling like someone's tryin' to grease me.

Quote:

Able to Act Fast: With this agency on the lookout for bad deals and schemes, consumers won’t have to wait for Congress to pass a law to be protected from bad business practices.


Okay, getting a little nervous about the power this agency could have. On the one hand, congress is hopelessly corrupt and neither them nor the FDA can be counted on. On the other, the solution they've come up with is to give some people more CONCENTRATED power? Really.

Quote:

Regulates Shadow Banking Industry: Levels the playing field for insured banks by regulating the shadow banking industry, such as mortgage brokers and payday lenders, for the 1st time and ensures that companies offering customers the same products receive the same regulatory treatment.


There's really a lot here I don't understand.

Quote:

Tougher State Laws: Allows states to pass tougher consumer protections that apply to all lenders, preventing federal regulations from preempting stronger state laws.


It sounds good... It might make inter-state commerce law complicated as hell, and unethical companies might just move to more lenient states. But in general, giving states a choice in their regulation is not something I'm opposed to.

Next section, more incoming.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 19, 2010 5:39 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by whozit:

"Rolling Stone" is no longger "alterinive media", they are now MSM. So what ever they print can not be trusted.....and they're stupid.




Remind me again, what are Faux News's ratings? Aren't they the BIGGEST of the MSM? I'll take you at your word that they're not to be trusted, and they're stupid.






"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 19, 2010 5:48 AM

BYTEMITE


Whatsits for Financial Stability

Quote:

Strong and Independent: Governed by an independent chairman, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, to provide insulation from political manipulation. The board will have 9 members including the federal financial regulators and two independent members. The board members' diverse areas of expertise will strengthen the board’s ability to identify and respond to emerging risks throughout the financial system.


See "independence" misgivings above.

Who has jurisdiction over these? Or at least checks THEM?

Quote:

Tough to Get Too Big: Writes increasingly strict rules for capital, leverage, liquidity, risk management and other requirements as companies grow in size and complexity, imposing significant costs on companies that pose risks to the financial system.


Imposing costs?

Although, I must say, if I look at this one way, this could be very elegant. You have a big company. It's big because it earns a lot of money. When it gets to a certain bigness, it pays enough money that by virtue of paying, it becomes less big.

It's logically sound, at least. I'm not sure about the implications? And, of course, if you take money out of the company, you end up taking that cut out of the workers' paychecks. So... Where does the money paid out GO? This is a VITAL question.

Quote:

Break Up Large, Complex Companies: Gives the regulators the authority to break up large, complex companies if they pose a threat to the financial stability of the United States.


I like smaller businesses, but I don't like this method. What if there were incentives to divest holdings? Okay, so you have big bad business with self-interests at heart. Might cause other people trouble, but they have a right to pursue those interests, and if doing so means they would otherwise get too big, they ought to get, I don't know, compensation or something to split up. Maybe?

Quote:

Close Gaps in Regulation: Identifies unregulated financial companies that pose systemic risk and assigns them to a federal regulator for supervision.


Federal regulators (banking committee, FDA) appear to be just as bad. Show me a clause that says how and why this won't become corrupt.

I think that's enough to discuss for now. I'll keep reading the rest.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 19, 2010 6:04 AM

BYTEMITE


Conservatives might like the sections for investor protections. "Securitization", "SEC and Improving Investor Protections".

There's also a section about executive compensation I'm wondering about. I mean, I don't like executives robbing their own companies blind, like what appears to have happened with Enron. And obviously, even if you have a small business someone might try to grab up most of the pie. But unlike the small business idea, I really don't see how this will make business less profit driven and more honesty driven.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 19, 2010 6:14 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by Shinygoodguy:
And you don't think the Dimocrats are wholly owned by the trial lawyers and workers unions ?


Really? Trial Lawyers? Who knew?

The working stiff and unions I could see, but trial lawyers?

I learn something new everyday. That's what I love about this site. Preach it, brother, preach it!


SGG

Tawabawho?



Yeah, Hero can tell us how Lawyers are all backing Democrats.... oh, wait.... that was more RapShit.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 19, 2010 10:35 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Byte, for all the things you are wary of or don't like, have you got any alternative ideas? It's the government's job to protect us, and yeah, while they fail as much as they succeed, who else do you want to turn to that will regulate Wall Street?

Perfect or not, I see it as an attempt to mitigate many of the failings of Wall Street and the Big Banks. And I'm not savvy enough about this stuff to come up with viable alternatives. I'm sure it will make for problems, but it's in my mind an honest attempt to solve the incredible free lunch big banks have had up until now...


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 19, 2010 4:51 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Why is this sounding less and less good as I go? I'm getting a slick oily feeling like someone's tryin' to grease me.


That's usually worth listenin to, but for a fact, you're gonna get some of that in *any* legislation passed by this so-called government, alas.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 19, 2010 6:59 PM

BYTEMITE


I have no problem with something attempting to restore sanity to the runaway corporatism and government control we have going on. There's good ideas here... It's just, it feels like they're only dealing with one half of the equation. Corporation and Government, money and power, flip sides of the same coin.

Maybe this is a step in the right direction, maybe to diminish one you have to first diminish the influence of the other. But my well earned distrust is telling me that no matter what they do, it's going to end up benefiting TPTB somehow.

If you want me to come up with alternatives I'd need to do quite a bit more research and think about it quite a bit more, as you can tell from my not knowing what the FDIC is. Money policy is not my strong suit, and when I think of a picture, I'm looking at the broad strokes.

It sounds to me like even you have some doubts here, a little. All of us want to believe that we (the people of America, and maybe even our government as representative) can fix the situation and stop spiraling the drain. But all of us are afraid we're getting flushed away anyway. There's no trust we can give Washington D.C. and the lobbyists, they've used it up over decades and generations of imperialism, authoritarianism, and foolishness.

And I'm sorry to say, but if it involves big business or banks, my first inclination for any bill is to try to find how we're being screwed. Maybe I can't see how good this bill is because I'm too cynical to trust it's good.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 19, 2010 7:58 PM

FREMDFIRMA



*shrug*
Yeah, and me havin the same problem, I doubt my input would be helpful cause the very concepts are financial system rests upon are so "insane" to me, so nonsensical and counterintuitive...

Well, let's just say that article from The Onion said it all for us, cause really it did.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 20, 2010 6:49 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Yup, of course I have my doubts. Given the power corporations have in government...

But, just like health care, it seems to me doing something is better than just rolling along with the status quo. In that respect, I'm glad someone's trying to do SOMETHING. I just don't see going along without any changes, so that we get stuck again the same way, as a better choice.

I have no doubt it will be less than adequate--IF they even manage to do it--and have aspects I won't like, but I know no other way.

Election reform, election reform, election reform...and get rid of lobbyests. Yeah, I know, dream on Leon, dream on...


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 10, 2022 8:12 AM

JAYNEZTOWN



To stop Republican blackmail, raise the debt ceiling now. | Moran
https://www.nj.com/opinion/2022/11/to-stop-republican-blackmail-raise-
the-debt-ceiling-now-moran.html


CNN reporter frets over GOP ‘crazy caucus’ House overreach, possible investigations into Biden
https://redstateobserver.com/article.asp?id=210837

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Will Your State Regain It's Representation Next Decade?
Sun, November 24, 2024 03:53 - 113 posts
Any Conservative Media Around?
Sun, November 24, 2024 03:44 - 170 posts
Thread of Trump Appointments / Other Changes of Scenery...
Sun, November 24, 2024 03:40 - 42 posts
MAGA movement
Sun, November 24, 2024 01:26 - 13 posts
Where is the 25th ammendment when you need it?
Sun, November 24, 2024 01:01 - 18 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sat, November 23, 2024 23:46 - 4761 posts
Australia - unbelievable...
Sat, November 23, 2024 19:59 - 22 posts
Elections; 2024
Sat, November 23, 2024 19:33 - 4796 posts
More Cope: David Brooks and PBS are delusional...
Sat, November 23, 2024 16:32 - 1 posts
List of States/Governments/Politicians Moving to Ban Vaccine Passports
Sat, November 23, 2024 16:27 - 168 posts
Once again... a request for legitimate concerns...
Sat, November 23, 2024 16:22 - 17 posts
What's wrong with conspiracy theories
Sat, November 23, 2024 15:07 - 19 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL