|
29 Mar 10 - 11:07 AM (#2874684) Subject: BS: Obama Admin and FInancial Reform From: Amos Here's a foreshadowing of the BS ahead as the need for financial reform gets resisted by the party of Neigh: "...Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, promptly had "Little Punk Staffer" buttons made up and distributed to Congressional aides. But Mr. Boehner isn't the problem: Mr. Frank has already shepherded fairly strong financial reform through the House. Instead, the question is what will happen in the Senate. In the Senate, the legislation on the table was crafted by Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut. It's significantly weaker than the Frank bill, and needs to be made stronger, a topic I'll discuss in future columns. But no bill will become law if Senate Republicans stand in the way of reform. But won't opponents of reform fear being cast as allies of the bad guys (which they are)? Maybe not. Back in January, Frank Luntz, the G.O.P. strategist, circulated a memo on how to oppose financial reform. His key idea was that Republicans should claim that up is down — that reform legislation is a "big bank bailout bill," rather than a set of restrictions on the banks. Sure enough, a few days ago Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, in a letter attacking the Dodd bill, claimed that an essential part of reform — tougher oversight of large, systemically important financial companies — is actually a bailout, because "The market will view these firms as being 'too big to fail' and implicitly backed by the government." Um, senator, the market already views those firms as having implicit government backing, because they do: whatever people like Mr. Shelby may say now, in any future crisis those firms will be rescued, whichever party is in power. The only question is whether we're going to regulate bankers so that they don't abuse the privilege of government backing. And it's that regulation — not future bailouts — that reform opponents are trying to block. So it's the punks versus the plutocrats — those who want to rein in runaway banks, and bankers who want the freedom to put the economy at risk, freedom enhanced by the knowledge that taxpayers will bail them out in a crisis. Whatever they say, the fact is that people like Mr. Shelby are on the side of the plutocrats; the American people should be on the side of the punks, who are trying to protect their interests. " NYT As they fought reforming our national health care system, the Reactionary forces of no-progress will do all they can to prevent necessary change, using Black PR, PR-Distortion-by-Redefinition, ad-hoc diatribes, and all the rest of their tired, toxic arsenal of mugwumpery. Do let's watch. A |
|
29 Mar 10 - 11:15 AM (#2874696) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and FInancial Reform From: Jack the Sailor When posting cutting and pasting opinion would you please provide more information than the name of the media outlet? The date and the name of the columnist would be nice. |
|
29 Mar 10 - 11:16 AM (#2874698) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and FInancial Reform From: Rapparee Cui bono? Always ask that -- "Who benefits"? |
|
29 Mar 10 - 11:29 AM (#2874707) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and FInancial Reform From: Amos Jack: Mea culpa. The excerpt is from an editorial column in the NYT today, by Paul Krugman. A |
|
29 Mar 10 - 11:30 AM (#2874709) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and FInancial Reform From: Jack the Sailor Thanks. |
|
29 Mar 10 - 12:28 PM (#2874756) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and FInancial Reform From: Jack the Sailor I worry about real financial reform. And I wonder about the Tea Party, If they are really for their stated goals. Why aren't they pushing for stricter laws, especially about bailouts? |
|
29 Mar 10 - 01:05 PM (#2874784) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and FInancial Reform From: Amos When they saw how much the Feds made selling their shares in Citibank they stopped dead in their tracks to start looking for an angle on all that profit. A |
|
29 Mar 10 - 01:25 PM (#2874802) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and FInancial Reform From: Jack the Sailor I just joined the Tea Party and asked the same question in a Forum. No reply so far. |
|
20 Apr 10 - 07:09 PM (#2890959) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and FInancial Reform From: beardedbruce who Obama will benefit... |
|
20 Apr 10 - 07:45 PM (#2890986) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and FInancial Reform From: Bobert Well, unless the feds are prepared to unravel the very complex "dirivatives" market then any legislation will be a failure... I have heard some very astounding numbers about that market... Like $450T!!! That's trillion!!!! That ain't chump change!!! I guess the thing that bother me most is that if the fat cats have corraled anywhere near taht amount of cash then it certainly makes sense why there isn't much cash left for the working class... I mean, lets get real here... We just had a health care reform bill that will insure upwards of 35 million people and it's cots is a tad less than just one of those trillions for ten years??? Somethin' very screwed up here when so few have so much... B~ |
|
20 Apr 10 - 08:58 PM (#2891020) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and FInancial Reform From: Q (Frank Staplin) Derivatives include futures contracts and options; i. e. financial instruments derived from other forms of assets. The G-20, to pare down risk taking, has recommended higher capitalization, stronger standards on risk management, international cooperation on oversight of financial firms operations, and rules on capital flow. These are not the most transparent of objectives, but the feeling that control is necessary is getting stronger. That '450 trillion is a world figure. Controls, if they do come, must be global if they are to be effective. No country can go it alone and remain a player in the world markets. |
|
20 Apr 10 - 09:54 PM (#2891043) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and FInancial Reform From: Bobert The problem with dirivatives is that when the day is done, they porduce absolutely nothing for mankind... The argument that if the US regulates them that nothing will change is bogus... Lots of stuff will change here in the US... First and formost, bankers and investors will have to do what the3y used to do and that is roll up their sleeeves and get a little dirty using money that would be kept out of the economy and, ahhhhhhh, actually lending it to small businesses that need it... But Wall Street has gotten very lazy... They don't wnat to earn money the "old fashioned way"... They want to take this pool of money and play games with it... If we think about it this way it might make a little more sense... It's like Wall Street has corraled this biass chunk of change and so what they are doing with it is holin' up in some hotel and you have 5 guys sittin' around the poker table playing poker with it and a bunch of other people standing arounb betting on who is going to win the hand or lose the hand??? That's a little simplistic but that, in essence is what we have... Now here's where it doesn't work for the country... This poker game produced "zero jobs"... It produced "Zero" infastructure... It produced absolutely nothing!!! That's right.... Absolutely nothing!!! It's nothing but a "ballgame" to keep the upper 5% rich and everyone else scratchin'... It is tieing up valuable capital that could be used to build factories... Or schools... Or even taking a loss to get our steel industry back from Japan??? But no, we have the same rich people playing pea-under-the-shell with the government and the American people... That's the real deal... B~ |
|
20 Apr 10 - 10:15 PM (#2891054) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and FInancial Reform From: mousethief Bobert hit it. We need that money flowing around and it's hung up with the über-rich in klugey investment schemes that don't help anybody but the über-rich. They suck money out of the general economy into their special pile where it sits. Eventually maybe the people will see that they are the real enemy, not the unled Democrazy Party. |
|
20 Apr 10 - 10:35 PM (#2891062) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and FInancial Reform From: Bobert Geeze, mouse... I am scared 'cause it sounds like the Repubs are talkin' about cooperatin' on this legislation.... That's a bad thing... They are in bed with the bad-guys so if they are cooperatin' than any bill that comes outta Congress will be junk... Right now, I'm smellin' one shit-load of $$$$s promised to one shit-load of Congressmen over this... And for the thousanth time, regulating Wall Street isn't a "bailout"??? I don't know hwere the current crop of Repubs came up with that but I think they need to collectively "pee in the cup"... b~ |
|
20 Apr 10 - 11:41 PM (#2891091) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and FInancial Reform From: Sawzaw I agree with Bobert that these derivatives are of no benefit except to the investors or maybe their creators. They produce nothing. I feel the same way about commodities traders. What do they do besides drive prices up and create bubbles? Just more middlemen that contribute nothing to the economy other than their own profits which they avoid taxes on. There should be a rule that they must take delivery of whatever they buy like an airline buying fuel and not some weaselly bastard buying it and flipping it to an airline after it goes up and the airline is in a jam. These people have no feelings for the people on the end of all that wheeling and dealing. The people who must bear the brunt of their money making schemes. They have no comprehension of what it's like. It is like trying to imagine what it is like to be blind. It's like "I'm not blind so what am I supposed to do abut it?" Then the politicians are paid off by these people. That's right, PAID OFF in the form of campaign contributions so they have to make it look like they are doing something. On CNN I heard them discussing the Blob. That is a group of lobbyists and staffers discussing and writing the bill. What? I thought lobbyists weren't going to run things any more. From NPR:An obvious example: both liberals and conservatives are finding a lot of flaws with the financial legislation. |
|
21 Apr 10 - 01:04 AM (#2891121) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and FInancial Reform From: mousethief Gotta agree with Sawz on this one. |
|
21 Apr 10 - 08:24 PM (#2891733) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: kendall I plan to vote against ALL politicians who have been in office more than one term. What's wrong with an investigation? What are the right wingers afraid of? If you drag a snake out into the sunlight it will die. |
|
21 Apr 10 - 09:10 PM (#2891760) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: Q (Frank Staplin) Anyone who thinks the US can go it alone on reforming derivatives (includes the whole futures market) is living on cloud 8 and three quarters. |
|
21 Apr 10 - 11:30 PM (#2891810) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: Arkie This is a world wide issue but there has to be a start in fixing things. Here is what one person in the field of investments has to say about reform. Motley Fool |
|
22 Apr 10 - 12:25 AM (#2891824) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: Sawzaw Hey Mouse, liftoff. Looky here at what Obama said before he was elected: "I don't take a dime of their [lobbyist] money, and when I am president, they won't find a job in my White House." Now be adivsed that Goldman Sachs donated $994,795 to Obama's 2008 presidential campaign. Goldman Sachs Goldman Sachs, one of Wall Street's most prestigious investment banks, was also among the many banks in 2008 and 2009 to receive billions of dollars in taxpayer money to help it stay afloat. Like others in the securities industry, Goldman Sachs advises and invests in nearly every industry affected by federal legislation. The firm closely monitors issues including economic policy, trade and nearly all legislation that governs the financial sector. It has been a major proponent of privatizing Social Security as well as legislation that would essentially deregulate the investment banking/securities industry. The firm tends to give most of its money to Democrats. A number of high-ranking government officials in recent years have spent part of their careers at Goldman Sachs. Chris Dodd 2010 Campaign contributions: Industry....................Total......Indivs......PACs Securities & Investment..$1,568,048..$1,204,848..$363,200 Lawyers/Law Firms..........$873,976....$701,920..$172,056 Insurance..................$804,450....$311,650..$492,800 Real Estate................$618,331....$387,955..$230,376 Commercial Banks...........$373,650....$244,150..$129,500 More here |
|
22 Apr 10 - 06:38 AM (#2891931) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: kendall And how much did they contribute to McCain's campaign? |
|
22 Apr 10 - 08:10 AM (#2891986) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: Bobert Whereas, yeah, the reality that to get elected one must raise a bundle of cash I don't get the impression that Obama has any sympathies for the Wall Street fat cats... Seems they have gone out of their way (think big bonuses) to poke Obama (and the American working class) in the side every chance they get... No, me thinks that theie is sufficient anger in the country for Obama (and Congress) to play hardball... B~ |
|
22 Apr 10 - 08:56 AM (#2892011) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: Riginslinger One thing the Republicans complain about is that the Democrats won't include FREDDY & FANNY in their reform measures. If that's true, why won't they? |
|
22 Apr 10 - 09:35 AM (#2892038) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity As I posted NUMEROUS TIMES during the 'election', both sides are immensely corrupt, and bought off, by the corporatist mega rich. If this hasn't become plainly obvious to you, by now, maybe you ought to spend a few months trying to figure out the 'secret chord progression' of Neil Young! Both Sides!!!!! GfS |
|
22 Apr 10 - 01:02 PM (#2892157) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: Bobert Try a song that ain't in G for a change, GfS... Yer startin' to sound like the political equivalent of every crummy bluegrass band you've ever heard... lol... B~ |
|
22 Apr 10 - 01:22 PM (#2892173) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: Amos Rig: Do you have any real data on this idea? First I haveheard of it; obviously I should spend more time listening to whinging on the right. A |
|
22 Apr 10 - 01:38 PM (#2892182) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: Q (Frank Staplin) In trying to keep their investors of all stripes happy, many major corporations donate to both major political parties and top candidates. As kendall implied (I think), McCain probably received a similar amount. In the primary and caucus stage, check the sums received by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and McCain and his major competitors. Today, Obama addressed 'Wall Street' in an attempt to sell controls- if successful, in part anyway, complaints reaching Congressmen will be muted and there may be a chance of getting a helpful bill passed. Some contributors here seem to think that major financial institutions do not represent their investors, who happen to include pension funds, life insurance funds, banks, union funds, etc. The bottom line is that most of us have some stake in their continued solvency. |
|
22 Apr 10 - 01:59 PM (#2892194) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: Q (Frank Staplin) Rings..., What reforms do you propose for Fmae and Fmac? Other than legislating that no mortgages are given by banks etc. to those with marginal abilities to pay them off? Or institutions can loan only with high interest rates to block those with little collateral? To do this, refuse to buy mortgages except those given to people or institutions who don't really need them in the first place? Eliminate one of them? |
|
22 Apr 10 - 09:21 PM (#2892447) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Bobert: "Try a song that ain't in G for a change, GfS... " Don't B flat, B sharp, but B natural! GfS |
|
22 Apr 10 - 09:27 PM (#2892448) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: Riginslinger "What reforms do you propose for Fmae and Fmac?" Quit paying the idiots who run them outrageous salaries, and make them examine the paper they buy, for a couple of things. |
|
22 Apr 10 - 09:33 PM (#2892451) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: Bobert LOL...GfS.... Actually, I can't think of anything I do that is in B??? B7th??? Yeah, but just one... Guess that there ain't alot of B in blues... lol... Maybe they should call it "lues"??? Poor W.C. Handy turnin' in his grave... Not so funny, W.C.... As fir finacial reform, looks as if the Dems learned their lesson from health care reform and ain't gonna take no "death squad" crap this time around... Good!!! I just hope that the Dems don't roll over here... Derivitives need to go... Take all that money that the Fat Cats are playin' poker with (for entertainment and a little "mad money") and put it into their subsidery banks and tell those banks to lend it the small businesses (mine included) so that we can keep movin' forward and keep handin' over pay checks to employeees every Friday afternoon... That is exactly what this is all about... No reason to complicate it... B~ |
|
22 Apr 10 - 09:46 PM (#2892459) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: Amos Those sound like real healthy propositions, Rig! A |
|
22 Apr 10 - 10:59 PM (#2892496) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: Q (Frank Staplin) I wasn't expecting any sort of intelligent answer from Rigs... and I wasn't disappointed. Many many thousands of mortgages come in the bundles to the FM's, or rather they come as lists with total costs from lending institutions across the country. The FM's would have to hire thousands to check item by item. The costs would be prohibitive and the system would choke on the volume. The government could cut down on the paper it buys, but then loans would be hard to get and business could be stifled. Controls must be exerted on the lending institutions at the local level. Congress could do a lot by setting limits- but it is not the easiest thing to legislate. The government can, to some extent, control interest rates, and set up a climate that discourages poor loans; cyclic ups and downs could be dampened but never wholly controlled. |
|
22 Apr 10 - 11:19 PM (#2892507) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Bobert: "Actually, I can't think of anything I do that is in B??? B7th??? Yeah, but just one... Guess that there ain't alot of B in blues... lol... Maybe they should call it "lues"???" You will if you play with horns!! (Not suggesting you should be horny, though.......) GfS |
|
23 Apr 10 - 08:01 AM (#2892689) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: Bobert Too late to take up and more instruments, GfS... My head stays full trying to keep all my various stringed instruments straigh in terms of the multiple open tunings and believe you me, I gota wierd collection of stringed instruments... Google up "Lowebow" for one... Or "Back Porch Guitar"... Don't think there's too many B's in either of them... B~ |
|
23 Apr 10 - 09:53 AM (#2892740) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: Greg F. Two words: Glass-Steagall. Needs to be re-instated & fast. |
|
23 Apr 10 - 10:32 AM (#2892763) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: Don(Wyziwyg)T I just love the way that, whenever anybody tries to do something to improve matters, the likes of GfS appear, tell everybody that it's both sides, and nothing makes any difference. Assuming it is both sides, which is by no means proven, I would tend to side with those who seek to change it, rather than listen to the whining no hopers who content themselves with bleating accusations that "It's not us, it's them", or "It's both of them, and you can't change it". If the human race had been afflicted with more of them, the insects would be running this planet now. Thank God the "no-hoper" gene is by its nature recessive, and you seem to have a President who doesn't have it. Don T. |
|
23 Apr 10 - 12:16 PM (#2892835) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: Bill D I see a slightly different interpretation of what GfS asserts: "...both sides are immensely corrupt, and bought off, by the corporatist mega rich. What it 'feels' like is that, although many Democrats have taken too many contributions from corporate interests, and thus are compromised in what they can say, they have mostly done it as individuals, out of simple carelessness and/or rationalized expediency, the Republicans seem to do it as a general matter of principle and party policy in order to promote the financial/corporate lobby. I 'think'...(I hope)... that if the rules were changed, many Democrats would be happy to get away from that awkward situation. I heard Chris Dodd the other night on the Senate floor, reading out the Republicans royally for their hypocritical stance on financial reform. Dodd HAS gotten $$$$ from dubious sources,(I have no idea if he kept track personally of where all the $$$ came from) but he sounds like a guy who wants to change the system, whereas Mitch McConnell sounds like he wants to set 'the old ways' in stone. |
|
23 Apr 10 - 12:28 PM (#2892840) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: Sawzaw CNN JOHN KING show Aired April 20, 2010 ....They don't have to enforce certain things. Is that what we're talking about here in all these back door regulations? They're going through changing one word at a time through what is hundreds of pages of legislation? YELLIN: Absolutely. And one staff member on the Hill told me that they refer -- there's something called the blob. The blob is the combination of lobbyists and staffers working on the bill constantly talking and conferring on what should be in it. And it's such a prevalent part, it is just such an accepted part at how business is done, they name it. KING: It is striking to me because one senator told me this and I went up to another senator who said they're trying to change shall to may. And I went up to another and said so when the Goldman lobbyists come to you and he said shall/may --.... |
|
23 Apr 10 - 12:58 PM (#2892847) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: Sawzaw "And how much did they contribute to McCain's campaign? " Goldman Sachs $230,095 |
|
23 Apr 10 - 01:01 PM (#2892850) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: Riginslinger "Many many thousands of mortgages come in the bundles to the FM's, or rather they come as lists with total costs from lending institutions across the country. The FM's would have to hire thousands to check item by item..." They shouldn't be bundling them. That's what caused all the problems. If it makes mortgages harder to get, and the home buyer has to wait a little longer, that's probably a good thing. If it means builders won't be hiring as many illegal aliens from Central America to roof houses, that's definately a good thing. |
|
23 Apr 10 - 06:00 PM (#2893001) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: Q (Frank Staplin) Rigs, do you know how many mortgages are issued each year? There were 79 million home equity loans extant in 2006. Who will pay for the thousands of new Federal government workers to check applications, and to verify the credit status of each applicant, all of which is done locally by the lending institutions and the credit check companies licensed in the State? Would you move all of this to a federal venue far from where the mortgage is applied? Would federal employees take over enforcing local inspection rules which must be satisfied as part of the mortgage application? Would Federal employees know local situations? A slow down in the home equity market would put construction workers, building component factory and sales personnel, developers, etc. ot of work- probably cutting a million workers or more in many fields. What nonsense! |
|
23 Apr 10 - 07:34 PM (#2893073) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: Riginslinger Q - Your support of the Reagan concept of ever expanding markets, requiring ever expanding populations demonstrates your inability to grasp realities. I would agree that the lending agencies should check on the validity of the applicants, but they don't, and haven't. |
|
23 Apr 10 - 08:12 PM (#2893108) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: mousethief Wow what a non sequitur. |
|
23 Apr 10 - 08:29 PM (#2893126) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: Q (Frank Staplin) Cost of Rigs... program? Good thing that it would never fly. |
|
23 Apr 10 - 09:44 PM (#2893169) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: Bobert Yeah, same old arguments... We can't possibly afford to pay people to regulate so lets just let the various segments of the economy regulate themselves... This is exactly what the right is pushin' here... But the right has turned out to be the fat cats and anyone with an I.Q. on the downwind side of a hundred that the fat cats can maipulate (think Tea Party folks here)... The problem is that these industries have now had 30 years of having it their way and in the words of Dr. Phil, "How's it workin' for you?"... It bothers me that in the midst of all this and Obama going to New York to have a little talk with Wall St. that, if I am not mistaken, the stock markets ended the day on the plus side... Is the fix in??? Maybe??? I hope not, but maybe... B~ |
|
23 Apr 10 - 10:13 PM (#2893178) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: Riginslinger Bobert, I agree that it makes sense to regulate these markets. I don't see that it would cost nearly as much money to pay regulators as it does to bail out banks. That having been said, my original post was in the form of a question--this isn't something I know very much about, so I'm curious--why does the administation leave Feddy and Fanny out of the equation? |
|
24 Apr 10 - 12:07 AM (#2893220) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: Little Hawk Quick review in case anyone missed it... Goldman Sachs donated $994,795 to Obama's 2008 presidential campaign. and... Goldman Sachs donated $230,095 to McCain's 2008 presidential campaign. And here's a chart of all their political contributions (bribes): Goldman Sachs money....where it went in 2008 election year To point this out, and to point out that BOTH sides of the partisan divide are deeply corrupt and have been bought out by major financial interests is NOT to say that "nothing makes any difference"....it is to offer ordinary people a chance to finally wake UP and take on the real enemy somehow instead of remaining hypnotized by the eternal politically partisan left/right dichotomy that is there mainly just to keep them distracted with fighting each other, and make them NOT look at or go after the real enemy, which is the corrupt big money financial entities who fund the political campaigns...and they fund BOTH sides! There isn't one party that's good in this corrupt system and another that's evil. There is a vast system of institutionalized graft already in place which choreographs and manipulates both sides no matter which one wins. How many individual politicians have the guts to fight that? A very tiny handful of them. Those are the people who need your help, no matter which party they are in. You have to see beyond old partisan habits and develop independent and truly revolutionary thinking to change what is going on. Old-style party line stuff is just more smoke and mirrors and it will not end the graft in Washington (and elsewhere). |
|
24 Apr 10 - 03:58 AM (#2893265) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""I see a slightly different interpretation of what GfS asserts: "...both sides are immensely corrupt, and bought off, by the corporatist mega rich."" Maybe so Bill, but it's the defeatism of the response which infuriates me. Obama looks to be trying to do something about it (he appears to have honest intentions), so instead of pissing and moaning, why not get behind him and prove that you can change things. Take a look at human history, and see how many times this situation has pertained, in one form or another, and good, honest, men have made a difference, and things have changed. Don T. |
|
24 Apr 10 - 08:01 AM (#2893350) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: Bobert Good point, Don... I think that the progressives have been beaten down so badly by the right over the last 30 years that they instictually expect for things to not turn out well... It's mindset that the right does not have... The right just keep plugging away toward their narrow minded, intolerant society that they see as their utopia... The left??? No so... B~ |
|
25 Apr 10 - 12:46 AM (#2893822) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity How do you do it, Little Hawk??...and Bill D. You seem the only ones on here who understand plain English...WITHOUT THE SPIN of party politics! All of you out there, who are looking to a political party to govern you..you are only in for disappointment, and heartache!!! If you want to be governed, fairly, LOOK TO YOUR MORALS!...and have dialogue, to and from those others, who do. Speak to them there! To try to change the minds and hearts of people, through legislation, especially corrupt legislation, is complete lunacy!!...and really, Haven't we seen enough corrupt legislation and stupid ideas passed into law??? Look at all the bickering, and tug of war over some bullshit, that some crooked political hack took bribes from 'special interests' to convince you that it was a 'good idea'????...and then you, in turn spit nails at those who clock it for what it is??...a set-up, that has a hidden agenda in it, that ultimately will cost you more of your freedom, money, or family members!! Maybe it makes you feel important to be an astute expert in something...........even if its bullshit!! By the way, Little Hawk, YO-HO!!!! GfS |
|
25 Apr 10 - 01:11 AM (#2893826) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: The Fooles Troupe What about the bottle of Rum? |
|
25 Apr 10 - 01:37 AM (#2893830) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Prefer 'Grey Goose'? |
|
25 Apr 10 - 01:27 PM (#2894046) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: Sawzaw "Obama looks to be trying to do something about it (he appears to have honest intentions), so instead of pissing and moaning, why not get behind him and prove that you can change things." I have always said he has good intentions, however political pressures prevent people from doing what they want to do. |
|
25 Apr 10 - 01:38 PM (#2894051) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: Riginslinger Lloyd Blankfein should be in jail. |
|
25 Apr 10 - 08:38 PM (#2894291) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: Bobert Yes, Rigs, he should.... |
|
26 Apr 10 - 12:13 AM (#2894369) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Finally!!!! Something that is agreed upon!!! A lot of CORRUPT politicians should join him there, too!!!! GfS |
|
26 Apr 10 - 08:24 AM (#2894512) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: Bobert Blank -brain is a no brainer.... Jail is almost too good for him... I'd say a year living the the projects would be more appropriate... B~ |
|
26 Apr 10 - 12:06 PM (#2894643) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: Don(Wyziwyg)T "I have always said he has good intentions, however political pressures prevent people from doing what they want to do."" So you advocate just giving up? GUTLESS!! Don T. |
|
26 Apr 10 - 02:43 PM (#2894733) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: beardedbruce Amos et al, I'm waiting on the reply to the answer demanded of Saws... He provided the answer, with clickies. Too bad it is being ignored. "Now be adivsed that Goldman Sachs donated $994,795 to Obama's 2008 presidential campaign." "And how much did they contribute to McCain's campaign? " Goldman Sachs $230,095 " As I have stated, and been personnaly abused by Amos and others- "Obama, bought and paid for." |
|
26 Apr 10 - 06:40 PM (#2894876) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: Bobert Well, I'd have ti say that Goldman Sachs made a poor investment when it came to Obama... But let's get real here... It ain't the progressives here who are stonewalling on reform... It's the other way around... I mean, we have the equivent of the "death sqauds" being thrown out be the conservatives as "bailouts"... This is not a true statement but rather than the Repubs just sayin' "Hey, we're here to protect the fat cats" they lie... They want the people to think that it is they, the conservatives, who are out to protect Joe Sixpack??? What a joke??? But the conservatives have used lies going back to FDR to try to change the subject and fog up reality... That is their strongest suit for which I do offer them credit for refining into an art form but... ...let's get real here... The Repubs want nothing in the way of reform... No, make that absolutely nothing... B~ |
|
26 Apr 10 - 06:53 PM (#2894887) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: beardedbruce Bobert, I have to disagree. IMO, your statement is false. I do not feel that way I am a Republican Therefore, your statement is false. SOME Republicans might feel that way- But then, IMO, SOME Democrats have been acting and voting in a manner which leads me to believe they are "Bought and Paid for." Obama is one of them. Just MY opinion, of the same worth as YOURS or AMOS's. Respectfully, bb |
|
26 Apr 10 - 07:43 PM (#2894926) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: Bobert Well, Bruce, my friend... This is the lie-de-jour' that the Repubs are putting out so if yer not throwing it out as if it's the Gospel then you are in a very slim minority amoung the Repubs... Unless, of course, Mitch McConnell has spun new mythology today to be parroted... If so, I haven't heard the new 'n improved lie-de-jour' from him... B~ |
|
26 Apr 10 - 08:19 PM (#2894947) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: Greg F. Just MY opinion, of the same worth as YOURS or AMOS's. The difference being that theirs have some evidence to back them up. |
|
26 Apr 10 - 08:37 PM (#2894957) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: Bobert Oh, wait... Seems that Mitch McConnell has come up with a new 'n improved lie-de-jour'... This right off the press... The reason that they fillibustered the financial reform bill, which in essence stopped debate on it, was becuase they wanted to debate the bill??? Me thinks it is well past time for manditory drug testing in Congress... And watch Mitch McConnell real close when you take his pee speciment to be sure he ain't got a little jar of clear stuff in his pocket... I mean, really... This is getting purdy pathetic on the Repubs side... Stopping a debate because they want a debate???? What is wrong here??? Beam me up, Scottie... B~ |
|
26 Apr 10 - 09:45 PM (#2894984) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: Amos Bruce: Of course his campaign was paid for. ALL campaigns are paid for. Including that of your illustrious archetype, W. That's how campaigns are made possible. Now, for you to imply because of that that Obama is in the pocket of some of his contributors, rather than others, is either short-sighted or ddisingenuous. Now come on, Bruiser. You know I love ya!! But I won't get f**ed without at least a kiss. A |
|
26 Apr 10 - 10:07 PM (#2894995) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: Riginslinger "Well, I'd have ti say that Goldman Sachs made a poor investment when it came to Obama..." Actually, they seem to love his proposals. Maybe they placed credit-default-swaps predicated on his program to fail. |
|
26 Apr 10 - 10:12 PM (#2894997) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: Bobert Oh, Rigs??? Like which one??? B~ |
|
27 Apr 10 - 11:18 AM (#2895281) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: beardedbruce Amos, Amos, Amos... "Now, for you to imply because of that that Obama is in the pocket of some of his contributors, rather than others, is either short-sighted or ddisingenuous" YOU seemed to make that connection in regards to Bush- ANOTHER example of your bigoted double standard. The mere fact of a contribution to him was enough for you to ignore the trial and go straight to the execution, like the Red Queen. |
|
27 Apr 10 - 01:02 PM (#2895341) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: Amos There was plenty of OTHER evidence, aside from the donations stats, that showed Bush up as a puppet of big industry and high finance. Cheny was a walking example of this kind of oligarchic corruption. A |
|
27 Apr 10 - 02:14 PM (#2895388) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: Amos From a WSJ Blog entry by an AFL-CIO executive: Wall Street needs to return to the basic principles of regulation Apr 27, 2010 13:12 EDT – Damon Silvers is director of policy and special counsel for AFL-CIO. The views expressed are his own. — The Wall Street Accountability Act is a conservative piece of legislation. It is a return to the basic principles of financial regulation that helped our country and the world avoid major financial crises from the 1930's to the 1980's, principles that our country turned away from in the name of free market fundamentalism and under pressure from the political power of the financial sector itself. While the legislation is long and detailed, the principles of financial regulation it embodies are simple and straightforward. 1) Insurance should only be sold to parties that have something to insure, and a company that sells insurance should have to put capital aside to back up their promise (derivatives regulation). 2) If you are buying and selling stocks and bonds and other investments on behalf of other people, you have to be loyal to your customers and provide them with enough information for them to oversee what you are doing (hedge fund regulation). 3) A stable banking system requires deposit insurance, and insured institutions must be regulated to limit their leverage and keep them away from highly risky activity (systemic risk regulation and the Volcker rule). 4) If an insured institution fails, it must be shut down in a way that protects both its depositors and the financial system, but that wipes out the management, stockholders and long term creditors to the extent the insured institution's liabilities exceed its assets (resolution authority). 5) You can't ask a regulator to at the same time ensure banks are financially healthy and to ensure that consumers are treated fairly (independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency). Derivatives, hedge funds, private equity firms, off balance sheet vehicles, the repeal of Glass-Steagall—all these so-called financial innovations were and are really nothing more than successful efforts by smart lawyers to undermine these principles, and the Wall Street Accountability Act is nothing more than an effort to restore them. Of course the Wall Street Accountability Act is an imperfect effort to end the Swiss cheese system of financial regulation. It is, after all, the product of a political process that continues to be far too much under the influence of the financial firms. The Act needs to be strengthened by covering private equity funds as well as hedge funds, and giving the SEC the power to force disclosures by these funds to their investors. Congress should close loopholes in the derivatives section. Most of all, the Senate should adopt limits on bank size such as those in Senator Sherrod Brown and Ted Kauffman's amendment. We should understand by now that as banks get bigger, it becomes harder for our political system to obey these common sense principles. The Act is missing the basic idea that if you make a mess you should have to clean it up—which means the financial sector needs to pay the public back for the costs of the financial collapse. Wall Street should be taxed not just for the direct costs of TARP, as President Obama rightly proposes, but for the real costs of addressing the job loss that continues to escalate and the trillion dollar subsidies provided by the Federal Reserve to the financial sector in the form of free credit in response to the crisis. Finally, though, the Wall Street Accountability Act is conservative in another deeper sense—it is a test of whether our government can respond to the reality of the damage done to our republic by a failed generation long experiment in market radicalism. In the end that raises the question of whether we still have, in the words of another president from Illinois, "government of, by and for the people." |
|
27 Apr 10 - 03:54 PM (#2895450) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: PoppaGator "Actually, I can't think of anything I do that is in B??? B7th??? Yeah, but just one... Guess that there ain't alot of B in blues... lol... Maybe they should call it "lues"???" You will if you play with horns!! (Not suggesting you should be horny, though.......)" Actually, to play with horns, you'd best be able to play in B-flat, which my music-PhD friend Jimbo calls "the official key of New Orleans" because of the brass-instrument issue Simplest strategy: capo up one fret and use key-of-A shapes, or go up four frets and play as though in G. A is undoubtedly the better "blues key," but ~ depending upon the song, and upon whether the guitar part should have a blues "flavor" ~ G will sometimes be the better choice. |
|
27 Apr 10 - 11:54 PM (#2895675) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: mousethief Any bank that's "too big to fail" should be busted up into independent smaller banks that are not "too big to fail". |
|
28 Apr 10 - 02:24 AM (#2895714) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Hey, Thanks Poppagator!! I'm so used to the wannabe intellectuals on here bitching at me, for every little thing, they can't even see that I'm on their side and ROOTING..<<<(for the Ebber), for them. Yes, if you play with horns, B flat is where they like! Just for shits and giggles, you can get around that by playing with them in G blues(pentatonic scale)...and still be in key!...because G blues scale is in Bflat major! Mix them together! Next time you're with the guys! Smiling, GfS |
|
28 Apr 10 - 02:37 AM (#2895720) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity This should be relevant to this thread, being as it is where you're at. Subject: RE: BS: Democratic Party Terrorist Organization? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 27 Apr 10 - 11:00 PM After you may have read that, (its short), both the Repubicraps and the Democraps, all say basically the same thing....they BOTH ARE INSISTING THEY KNOW WHATS 'BEST FOR US'.....guess what??...They're both full of shit! They are not only both puppets, they are working in tandem, by the puppet masters! Betcha' don't quite see it. Yo-Ho, Little Hawk, here's a shot for ya'......you explain it! Grinning! GfS P.S. I'll be watching............ |
|
28 Apr 10 - 02:52 AM (#2895726) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: The Fooles Troupe Here is your Zen of the Day: The ten thousand questions are one question. If you cut through the one question, then the ten thousand questions disappear. |
|
28 Apr 10 - 10:57 AM (#2895966) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Foolestroupe: "If you cut through the one question, then the ten thousand questions disappear." If all the world is a stage......where does the audience sit? GfS |
|
28 Apr 10 - 10:54 PM (#2896387) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: mousethief God's the audience. |
|
28 Apr 10 - 11:14 PM (#2896396) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: Donuel God is now eating pop corn with m&m's in it while laughing at the Christians utter blaphemies and athiests quote Christ. (He/she loves these kind of plot twists) but I digress Its a good thing that the Kentucky Derby is this weekend or the Republicans might have stayed late to veto debate on Wall St. reform for a fourth time. Or maybe it was the 3 strikes and you're out rule. |
|
29 Apr 10 - 12:33 AM (#2896429) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: mousethief I think they realized they were starting to look like they were in the pocket of big finance. Of course they are, as are the democrats, but at least the democrats were proposing legislation. But the public is still angry about the near-collapse of the Fall of 2008. So many are jobless, or know or are related to somebody who is unemployed. This happened on Bush's watch, caused by policies initiated under Reagan (and Clinton but nobody remembers that), and the Republicans were refusing to help write legislation to prevent its happening again. Otnay Ootay Ightbray. |
|
29 Apr 10 - 02:00 AM (#2896441) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: Sawzaw I have heard Repubs say there are things in the bill they like and some they don't like. They said they especially liked the stuff abot derivaties. It is being spun as the Repubs are against reform. They believe the bill does nothing to prevent big banks from getting bailouts. McCain and a Democrat Maria Cantwell proposed reinstating Glass Steagall back in December. That would require a lot less work than a new bill because it is already written and everybody knows what is in it and how it will work. A no brainer. Other new stuff could be hashed out and enacted later. The Party of YES? said NO, that would be like going back to the walkman. Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Chairman, Chris Dodd, bought and paid for by Wall Street, says he has something better. Contributions to Dodd: SAC Capital Partners...........$248,200 Citigroup Inc..................$155,594 Royal Bank of Scotland.........$142,600 United Technologies............$141,500 Bear Stearns...................$118,550 Goldman Sachs..................$105,400 Travelers Companies.............$98,900 American International Group....$98,100 The Hartford....................$92,250 JPMorgan Chase & Co.............$72,250 Ernst & Young...................$70,750 Merrill Lynch...................$68,300 Morgan Stanley..................$67,100 General Electric................$60,850 KPMG LLP........................$59,900 PricewaterhouseCoopers..........$59,800 Apollo Advisors.................$57,900 Bank of America.................$57,850 UBS AG..........................$54,200 Liberty Mutual Insurance........$52,800 |
|
29 Apr 10 - 11:07 AM (#2896697) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Sawzaw, Dodd, McCain, Frank, Rangle, Waters, Pelosi, Reid, Specter, Gingrich, among others, both sides of the aisle, are crooks, and should be dealt with accordingly! GfS |
|
29 Apr 10 - 02:04 PM (#2896776) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: dick greenhaus Sawzaw- It's not so much that the Repubs don't like aspects of the proposed bill--they were filibustering to keep it from even discussed on the Senate floor. |
|
30 Apr 10 - 12:39 AM (#2897085) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: mousethief Blocking work is what the Republican caucus of this Senate does best. |
|
30 Apr 10 - 02:47 AM (#2897117) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Mouser: "Blocking work is what the Republican caucus of this Senate does best." ...And running state and federal governments into bankruptcy, and raising taxes to obscene levels is what the Democraps do best....Just ask California, New York, New Jersey, Michigan, and now the U.S.! That crap, SHOULD be blocked!! Wink, GfS |
|
30 Apr 10 - 03:33 AM (#2897124) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: mousethief Hmm.... compare tax rates under Obama to tax rates under Eisenhower. Which is the Dem and which is the Republican? Tax rates are so far from obscene right now it's absurd to even put the words on the same page. Obscenely low on the greedy bastards at the top, maybe, who sell all our jobs to the Chinese and milk the government for corporate welfare to line their greasy pockets. They could stand to pay some more in taxes. But you love them, no doubt. And don't talk to me about running governments into bankruptcy. Clinton had a balanced budget. Bush unbalanced it with two unnecessary wars. Then Repuglican policies lead to the "near" collapse and the TARP, pushed and signed by a Repuglican, drove us further in. Requiring a stimulus package which, if we had the debt situation left by Clinton, the Democrat, would hardly have been felt. Thankfully it has stabilized the economy and we appear to be on the road to recovery. What the Democrats do best. It's the economy, stupid. |
|
30 Apr 10 - 03:49 AM (#2897131) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Mouser: "Requiring a stimulus package which, if we had the debt situation left by Clinton, the Democrat, would hardly have been felt. Thankfully it has stabilized the economy and we appear to be on the road to recovery. What the Democrats do best." Refer to: Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 30 Apr 10 - 03:45 AM GfS |
|
02 May 10 - 11:13 AM (#2898553) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: Sawzaw Obama supporter, Warren Buffett Lobbying Senate Committee to Avoid Derivatives Reform Warren Buffett is lobbying the U.S. Senate to avoid derivatives reforms that would require, among other things, financial institutions to put up collateral to cover potential losses. According to the WSJ, Buffett, who has referred to derivatives as financial weapons of mass destruction, is leaning on Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson to help him with an exemption that would potentially help Berkshire Hathaway's (BRKa) (BRKb) $63 billion derivatives portfolio avoid a financial hit. The provision, sought by [Buffett] and pushed by Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson in the Senate Agriculture Committee, would largely exempt existing derivatives contracts from the proposed rules the Journal said. Previously, the legislation could have allowed regulators to require that companies such as Nebraska-based Berkshire, the investment group led by Mr. Buffett, put aside large sums to cover potential losses. The Journal also noted that that the White House wants to kill the language in the provision pushed by Buffett on the grounds that it would weaken the govt's ability to regulate the $450 trillion derivatives market which allows investors to speculate on the future price of a good, such as oil or mortgages, without buying the underlying investment. The new legislation could require that derivatives trade more like stocks or bonds on exchanges, instead of in private deals, the paper said. |
|
02 May 10 - 11:22 AM (#2898558) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: mousethief Big business doesn't like proposed financial reform. Legislators seeking reelection funds are amenable to pressure from big business. News at 11. |
|
02 May 10 - 10:40 PM (#2898922) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: Sawzaw Obama: No lobbying allowed except for my buds and my contributors and... |
|
03 May 10 - 12:00 AM (#2898956) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Admin and Financial Reform From: mousethief Yes, I'm sure there are no lobbyists lobbying against Obama's pet bills. None at all. None, like, say, big insurance companies who stand to lose bazillions if we add a public option. Not at all. |