DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Kramer on October 16, 2011, 10:20:33 PM
-
If Wall Street is a big problem then why didn't Obama, Pelosi and Reid do something about it when they had full control of all 3 institutions?
-
They did a lot, of rescuing , bailing out and tarping.
This ensured that the giant corperations that had been poorly run would not die.
Perhaps giving a compeditive edge to poorly run companys for years to come.
-
The companies the bailed out are not failing, please note.
Many have paid back the money borrowed in full.
-
<<If Wall Street is a big problem then why didn't Obama, Pelosi and Reid do something about it when they had full control of all 3 institutions?>>
Because they are wholly indebted to Wall Street. It owned them then just as it owns them now. The only difference is that a lot of people, most of whom are Obama's former base, are really starting to see the light and are very upset with Wall Street. This leaves Obama, Pelosi and Reid with a big problem: how to APPEAR to be "doing something" about Wall Street without really doing anything.
This reminds me of a scene from The Prince of Foxes, where the good guy gets his eyes gouged out by the bad guy's executioner. I couldn't stand to watch the scene, so I missed how the executioner only pretended to gouge out the guy's eyes in the arena, but palmed off a couple of skinned grapes instead and held them up to the emperor while the good guy bellowed in fake pain. I didn't get the rest of the movie because the good guy only seemed blind when he was with other people but OK when he was alone. When he took his revenge on the tyrant, I was like Huh? How can a blind guy split heads like that? Obama has the Nice Executioner's Dilemma - - how can he appear to be chopping heads on Wall Street while at the same time doing no real harm to them?
-
As I said, I sure do hope that messers Obama & Pelosi run on a campaign of being right there with the OWS folk. Best thing that could happen for this country
-
I am pretty sure that one thing they will not do is take advice from sirs.
-
Good thing no one expects them too. Only twits would actually think such and opine as such
-
I am pretty sure that one think they will not do is take advice from sirs.
Well said you dolt, NOT REALLY. Who taught you how to make a sentence? If you are going to cut someone down it least make yourself look more intelligent than a 5 year old.
-
<<I am pretty sure that one thing they [Pelosi and Obama] will not do is take advice from sirs.>>
I wish they would, those two-faced, double-dealing, lying hypocrites, I would love to see them taking sirs' advice on everything they do.
But this does not mean that sirs' career as a political advisor is a non-starter. He could probably get hired on by the Herman Cain campaign. I hear that they are now busily scouring old Superman comics to see if they can figure out Superman's plan of attack against Lex Luthor.
-
But at least we know what can bring down Superman's super ability at dealing with facts, contrary to his already bedrock conclusion of what is, is
-
<<But at least we know what can bring down Superman's super ability at dealing with facts, contrary to his already bedrock conclusion of what is, is>>
THERE ya go, sirs. Something you can bottle and sell. Take it to the Herman Cain campaign and you're a cinch to be hired. Better yet, take it to Obama and Pelosi first, and offer them a first right of refusal.
-
Boy, I'd love to take it to Obama & Pelosi, but Xo is convinced they won't listen to me. Go figure
-
OK so let me see if I understand. The protesters are protesting Wall St, which includes the banks, and their answer is to reelect Obama and to have even bigger government in order to fix the problem with banks and Wall St.
If that is what they are protesting then why are they so unhappy? Didn't TART bale out Wall St and the banks? And TARP was a couple of $Trillion Dollars, and that was government money, right? Which is bigger government, which is what they want. And Obama pushed TARP, along with fears to all Americans that is the banks weren't baled out, with taxpayer money, they would fail and we would all be out of work and eating from dumpsters.
So if the government didn't step in and bale out Wall St and the markets had reacted properly the institutions supposedly would have failed; banks would have failed, Wall St would collapse and the free markets would have done what free markets do minus the government getting involved.
Am I missing something here? Aren't these protesters kinda mixed up, confused, uneducated, ignorant, dumb and silly?
-
OK so let me see if I understand. The protesters are protesting Wall St, which includes the banks, and their answer is to reelect Obama and to have even bigger government in order to fix the problem with banks and Wall St.
I presented that very question in my "Riddle me this thread". (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=15925.0) Obama, Pelosi, & Reid were all for, and behind the bailouts, sticking the bill on the taxpayers. Currently, Obama has his buddies at Solyndra are getting most, if not all of his tax payer money back, before the tax payer. And they now have the gall to try and ride that wave that they themselves spearheaded??
And where's the MSM?? Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Is it any wonder neither XO nor Tee can come up with even 1 "accomplishment" that the Dems can hang their hat on, with campaign commercials, and say "4 more years gets you this!!"
-
<<Is it any wonder neither XO nor Tee can come up with even 1 "accomplishment" that the Dems can hang their hat on, with campaign commercials, and say "4 more years gets you this!!">>
Hey leave me outta this! I'm first to admit that Obama is a disappointment and a failure, a liar and a hypocrite. I don't give a shit what happens to him.
-
Clarity provided, thank you. I amend my prior remark......Is it any wonder XO can't come up with even 1 "accomplishment" that the Dems can hang their hat on, with campaign commercials, and proclaim "4 more years gets you more of this"
-
<<Is it any wonder neither XO nor Tee can come up with even 1 "accomplishment" that the Dems can hang their hat on, with campaign commercials, and say "4 more years gets you this!!">>
Hey leave me outta this! I'm first to admit that Obama is a disappointment and a failure, a liar and a hypocrite. I don't give a shit what happens to him.
Mikey, how do you feel about Obama using the protesters to get reelected? And how do you feel about the government baling out Wall St when had they let the market do it's thing the bunch of them would have gone down in flames?
Doesn't your movement want more government involvement which is what happened with the TARP Bailouts?
Seems like you and the protesters have a very schizophrenic message.
-
Obama has done a much better job than McCain would have done. Note that both wars are winding down and the nation has avoided any major 9-11 type attacks. I am happier with Medicare than with any of the medical plans that I paid three times more for with my employer, and I have not missed a single SS check.
I don't think that any of the GOP hopefuls is likely to make things better. None of them has a workable plan, and 999 is just a dumb gimmick.
-
Obama has done a much better job than McCain would have done. Note that both wars are winding down and the nation has avoided any major 9-11 type attacks. I am happier with Medicare than with any of the medical plans that I paid three times more for with my employer, and I have not missed a single SS check.
I don't think that any of the GOP hopefuls is likely to make things better. None of them has a workable plan, and 999 is just a dumb gimmick.
Both wars are winding down?
Is this because Al Queda is exausted?
-
Obama has done a much better job than McCain would have done. Note that both wars are winding down and the nation has avoided any major 9-11 type attacks. I am happier with Medicare than with any of the medical plans that I paid three times more for with my employer, and I have not missed a single SS check.
I don't think that any of the GOP hopefuls is likely to make things better. None of them has a workable plan, and 999 is just a dumb gimmick.
1. do you have a crystal ball that told you how bad McCain would be?
2. if you like Medicare then thank Bush.
3. as far as the GOP is concerned do you have a crystal ball that is telling you they will do a lousy job?
-
<<Mikey, how do you feel about Obama using the protesters to get reelected?>>
Disgusted, like I am with everything else he does and all the things he doesn't do. Obama really fooled everyone who wanted change. He really burned his base, me included, even if I couldn't vote for him or contribute to the campaign. I rooted for him all the way. Really believed he was the agent of change.
I think the protestors are entering a really critical phase in their movement. From what I've seen of the original bunch, they weren't fooled by either the Democrats or the GOP, and they correctly diagnosed the problem as being with the system itself. As Obama moves to rope them into his camp, he will be the kiss of death to whatever was hopeful and original - - they will end up supporting the system by participating in it through Obama. I hope and pray that they're smart enough and strong enough to avoid his embrace, but it will be very tough.
<< And how do you feel about the government baling out Wall St when had they let the market do it's thing the bunch of them would have gone down in flames? >>
That's above my pay grade - - I'm not an economist. But I'll tell you my feelings about it, right or wrong. First of all, I'm not sure that letting them all fail as they richly deserved wouldn't have caused a conflagration that would have damaged the economic interests of tens of millions of innocent Americans. Maybe some of them really were "too big to fail," repulsive as that concept may be. But from where I sat, I think Americans were stampeded into the bail-out by being presented with only TWO possible scenarios - - EITHER we let them fail and all hell breaks loose OR we bail them out and prevent some kind of unprecedented national collapse. I saw no consideration of other possible alternatives, such as: we let them fail and the bail-out money that was previously ear-marked for them is instead put to work on plans to relieve the suffering of the innocent Americans who supposedly would have been thrown to the wolves had the miscreants not been bailed out. IMHO, nobody paid any attention to exactly WHAT kind of hell would break loose if the bail-out didn't happen, who exactly would be hurt by it, and whether innocent Americans hurt by the collapse of the failed institutions couldn't have had the blow softened or avoided completely by programs set up with the funds ultimately handed over in the bail-out. The American people were presented with only two stark options, when there could have been others.
<<Doesn't your movement want more government involvement which is what happened with the TARP Bailouts?>>
I have a problem with the term "government involvement" which could cover both the TARP bailouts and the increased regulation of the financial industry. I think we're dealing with two different phenomena here and they can't BOTH be covered under the same word or phrase. I think it's fair to say that the movement is opposed to the TARP or any other bail-out of incompetent or crooked enterprises, but at the same time is in favour of increased government regulation of the financial industry so that shit like the sub-prime mortgage bond fiasco cannot be allowed to happen again.
<<Seems like you and the protesters have a very schizophrenic message.>>
Not really. You just failed to recognize that you were using the term "government involvement" to cover two very different issues. The protestors are FOR government involvement in regulation of the financial industry but AGAINST government involvement in the bail-outs. Apples and oranges. Both are fruits but it's not schizophrenic to like apples and hate oranges.
-
<<Doesn't your movement want more government involvement which is what happened with the TARP Bailouts?>>
I have a problem with the term "government involvement" which could cover both the TARP bailouts and the increased regulation of the financial industry. I think we're dealing with two different phenomena here and they can't BOTH be covered under the same word or phrase. I think it's fair to say that the movement is opposed to the TARP or any other bail-out of incompetent or crooked enterprises, but at the same time is in favour of increased government regulation of the financial industry so that shit like the sub-prime mortgage bond fiasco cannot be allowed to happen again.
No, these things do belong in the same department. Where the government gives instruction or command doesn't it take responsibility for the result?
This isn't a case of being for apples and against oranges , it is more like being for apples and against apple trees.
Everybody likes jobs, everybody wants to use money once it is gathered together, so we gotta be against employers and financiers because we don't understand that connection?
I think that TARP was a natural follow on to the government involvement that helped cause the crash. Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac were quite popular before the crash because they lubricated the process of the poorer risk client getting a loan.
I see your complaint as likeing the heads and hating the tails , how diffrent is it really?
-
<< No, these things do belong in the same department. Where the government gives instruction or command doesn't it take responsibility for the result?>>
If the government through its criminal code prohibits murder, is it then responsible for every murder that then occurs? If its criminal code prohibits rape, is it then responsible for all rapes?
Your idea is one of the craziest I have heard lately. Its logical flaw is that the government is the sole actor in our universe, or if not, that everyone just follows the law once it is proclaimed, so that all results of the law could only be the combined result of the government and any other actors all acting together to carry out the enacted laws. That is just ludicrous.
<< This isn't a case of being for apples and against oranges , it is more like being for apples and against apple trees.>>
For that theory to work, you'd have to convince me that government regulation of the financial industry will produce the kind of conduct that resulted, necessarily or not, in the bailout. However, the governmental regulation of the financial industry DID NOT cause the financial melt-down that led to the bail-out. The cause of the melt-down was the inherent greed and criminality of the financial system itself and Wall Street in particular, which could easily have been reined in by tighter government regulations strictly enforced.
<< Everybody likes jobs, everybody wants to use money once it is gathered together, so we gotta be against employers and financiers because we don't understand that connection? >>
No, the banking and financial systems did function in the past to gather money and lend it out to businesses, thereby helping to maintain relatively high levels of employment, but that was when both systems were tightly regulated to prevent the kind of criminal activity that led directly to the financial melt-down of 2008. Once the regulations were weakened, the criminal activity naturally increased accordingly and in very short time led to the melt-down.
<<I think that TARP was a natural follow on to the government involvement that helped cause the crash. Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac were quite popular before the crash because they lubricated the process of the poorer risk client getting a loan.>>
That is probably the grossest over-simplification of the melt-down that I have ever seen, but it's a very common falsification in conservative circles. There was nothing in the "lubricating" process that forced lenders to make loans to borrowers who had virtually no prospects of ever repaying the loan. If lenders were forced to loosen restrictions on lending, leading to an increase in bad loans, that in itself could never have caused the melt-down. Banks and lending institutions would have seen their losses gradually rise and perhaps at the extreme end of the spectrum, some of the smaller lenders would have gone under, which of course would have prompted a shit-storm of legislative efforts to reverse the "lubricating" efforts before more, and bigger, banks went under.
In fact, what happened was that unscrupulous brokers cobbled together mortgage loans to home-buyers who didn't have a hope in hell of ever repaying the loan, merely to earn a short-term commission, and the financial industry stepped in to immediately relieve the first lenders of the consequences of their loans by bundling the mortgages into new securities they had invented that inexplicably got triple-A ratings from all rating agencies and could then be re-sold to other buyers, including foreign banks. NONE of this activity was remotely mandated by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, all of it was criminal or would have been had there been closer governmental regulation of the financial and banking industry. The problem was exacerbated exponentially when some of the producers of the bonds realized they could bet against them by insuring themselves against the default that they knew would ultimately arise, and procured this insurance from insurers such as AIG by the creation of new instruments known as credit default swaps, which enabled AIG and other insurers to avoid the governmental restrictions placed upon what they could and could not insure. By creating credit default swaps, the insurance industry was able to insure without being caught by the regulations that were meant to stop the insurers from engaging in exactly this kind of risky activity. The criminality of the rating agencies in looking the other way, not only for the purchasers of the mortgage bonds but also for the insurers against their default has never been adequately investigated. Had the insurance industry been more tightly regulated, the fraudulent use of credit default swaps to avoid the regulations governing the issuance of policies would have been detected and prohibited before the whole house of cards got up off the ground.
The conservative myth that the melt-down was caused by government regulation is just insane bullshit that takes one government regulator - - Fanny and Freddy - -and their combined LOOSENING of restrictions as to who could qualify as a borrower - - and then misrepresents even the loosening of qualifying restrictions as somehow constituting MORE government "interference" with business; and then completely IGNORES all of the banking, financial and insurance industry criminality that then followed, so that it can present Fanny and Freddy and their supposed "interference" in the lending process as the sole cause of the crash.
The real cause of the crash was greed across the board - - the greed of the mortgage brokers who signed up unqualified borrowers for a quick up-front commission; the greed of the lenders, who found they could package what was effectively shit with a triple-A rating and sell it as bonds to unsuspecting banks up-stream; the greed of the rating agencies who rated the shit bonds triple-A so as not to offend their patrons in the financial industry who were bundling and selling the shit for the original lenders and selling it to their own clients as triple-A; the greed of financial houses for packaging and selling what they knew to be shit and in some cases for selling it to their own clients; the greed of the insurance industry for insuring against default on a commodity that they knew was going to default, for a healthy premium and probably some major under-the-table payoffs; the greed of the law firms and accounting firms who greased all the wheels when they should have known they were only building a house of cards but didn't give a shit as long as their exorbitant fees were paid on time.
The utter bullshit that the whole crash was caused by a loosening of restrictions (painted as "more government regulation") by Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac is the new conservative mantra, everyone singing it is lying and knows it is lying, but it's used to keep the hicks, rubes and yokels who vote for the GOP to keep quiet as the GOP carries on its crusade for less and less government "interference" in business. The Democrats, who as late as the time of Harry Truman, would have raised holy hell at the GOP and the financial industry, basically keep their heads down and their mouths shut when the anti-regulation bandwagon rolls into town, because they have been bought and paid for by the same criminals that the GOP has been serving since the Great Depression.
Which is why the Occupy Wall Street! protestors correctly identify Wall Street and not the Democrats or the GOP as the real source of the problem - - they are going after the organ grinder and not the monkey. Guys like you, plane, don't really know what's going on, so you drink the Kool-Aid and swallow the bullshit about regulations. The difference between you and Occupy! is like night and day. They just aren't buying the bullshit any more.
<< I see your complaint as likeing the heads and hating the tails , how diffrent is it really?>>
Oy, plane. Read what I just wrote. Wake up. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid.
-
<< No, these things do belong in the same department. Where the government gives instruction or command doesn't it take responsibility for the result?>>
If the government through its criminal code prohibits murder, is it then responsible for every murder that then occurs? If its criminal code prohibits rape, is it then responsible for all rapes?
Talk about flawed logic...that attempted anaolgy requires a criminal endeavor from that of the Wall Street folk, Coporations, and Busnesses. Pray tell, what is the Federal crime they have commited?? Here's a hint, making a profit, isn't a crime.
-
<< No, these things do belong in the same department. Where the government gives instruction or command doesn't it take responsibility for the result?>>
If the government through its criminal code prohibits murder, is it then responsible for every murder that then occurs? If its criminal code prohibits rape, is it then responsible for all rapes?
Talk about flawed logic...that attempted anaolgy requires a criminal endeavor from that of the Wall Street folk, Coporations, and Busnesses. Pray tell, what is the Federal crime they have commited?? Here's a hint, making a profit, isn't a crime.
At least Mikey is man enough to answer where as XO is a coward that hides behind name-calling and labels. Mike is a misguided critical thinker and XO has to have a script or shall I say Talking Points.
-
<<Talk about flawed logic...that attempted anaolgy requires a criminal endeavor from that of the Wall Street folk, Coporations, and Busnesses. Pray tell, what is the Federal crime they have commited?? Here's a hint, making a profit, isn't a crime. >>
I'd like to talk about flawed logic, but I think that first I'll talk about short-sightedness. And crime, and what makes certain acts criminal.
Two days ago marked the 45th anniversary of the outlawing of LSD in the USA. On October 15, 1966, anyone could legally drop acid in the US, and the next day, it had become a crime. Legislative action makes and unmakes crimes. That is an idea that should be kept in mind when discussing a legitimate question such as sirs' "What Federal crimes were committed?" (Making a profit, of course, has never been a crime in the USA and probably never will. But if the profit is calculated on the basis of revenue from bank robbery minus cost of throwaway gun, ammo and getaway gas, you are going to have a profit that cannot be legitimized simply by the fact that it IS a profit.)
So there is a possible short answer to sirs' question, "What Federal crimes were committed?" but the answer is not known yet. It is my understanding that Federal investigators are still unravelling the complex details of the incredibly complex transactions that occurred, trying to see if any Federal crimes were committed, and if so, whether there is enough evidence to justify going forward with criminal charges based on existing Federal laws as of the date of commission of the acts in question. If any Federal laws were broken, we can only know the details in due course, and it is possible that there will never be enough evidence of such law-breaking to bring a case forward. And if that's the case, also, we shall presumably know that too, in the fullness of time.
OOPS! GOTTA GO AND WILL BE BACK ATCHA TO FINISH IN A BIT
-
so in otherwords, your analogy is bogus, since there have been no crimes committed, no indictements, nothing that Wall Street or Corporate America has done to warrant the flawed notion of If the government through its criminal code prohibits murder, is it then responsible for every murder that then occurs? If its criminal code prohibits rape, is it then responsible for all rapes?
There's been no raping. And as someone apparently needs the reminder one more time, making a profit is not a crime
-
And as someone apparently needs the reminder one more time, making a profit is not a crime
===================================
As Tee pointed out, making a profit can indeed be a crime. It can also be a sin.
-
<< Obama really fooled everyone who wanted change. He really burned his base, me included, even if I couldn't vote for him or contribute to the campaign. I rooted for him all the way. Really believed he was the agent of change.>>
So there you have it folks. Obama has lost his base.
So Romney needs to remind remind remind 'normal' people that Obama is a radical leftist Marxist Socialist to win.
Unlike McCain Romney will have to hit Obama hard.
-
And as someone apparently needs the reminder one more time, making a profit is not a crime
===================================
As Tee pointed out, making a profit can indeed be a crime. It can also be a sin.
"Can" does NOT equal IS. Simply making a profit is NOT a crime.
One can make being born with blonde hair a crime. Just because someone hates something, someone else has, does not make it a crime for that something to be
-
<< Obama really fooled everyone who wanted change. He really burned his base, me included, even if I couldn't vote for him or contribute to the campaign. I rooted for him all the way. Really believed he was the agent of change.>>
Since you are so easily fooled (Note: I was never fooled by Obama) maybe you are being played by Soros and the protesters too.
Mikey, stop being fooled by these people!
-
<<so in otherwords, your analogy is bogus, since there have been no crimes committed, no indictements, nothing that Wall Street or Corporate America has done to warrant the flawed notion of If the government through its criminal code prohibits murder, is it then responsible for every murder that then occurs? If its criminal code prohibits rape, is it then responsible for all rapes?
<<There's been no raping. And as someone apparently needs the reminder one more time, making a profit is not a crime>>
Hah, sorry sirs, you shoulda waited for me to finish, I told you I'd be back shortly. And you're right, making a profit is not a crime. Not in and of itself. But there are many profit-making activities that ARE (or once were, or should be) a crime. And those I will get to in a minute.
Continuing from where I left off - -
So we are left with a lot of economy-crashing commercial activity, which, so far as we know at the moment, are not crimes. From a criminal investigation POV, their file can be closed immedately: they did X,Y,Z but at the time they did XYZ, none of it was a crime, case closed.
From a POLITICAL POV, which is where the Occupy! movement comes in, we have to look a little deeper. Was it ONCE a crime? When did it stop being a crime? How did it stop being a crime? Who made it no longer a crime? Why did they do so? Should it have been made a crime? Who tried to make it a crime? How did the attempt to make it a crime fail? These questions are important because the movement is concerned with cause and effect, with assigning blame, with future preventative actions, all of which are political in nature.
A lot of the rot spread because of repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999. The Act, one of the New Deal's landmark regulatory accomplishments, set up a wall of separation between commercial and investment banking. When the Act was repealed in 1999, it didn't take long for the staidest of commercial banks to take wild and wilder speculative flings, culminating of course in the bundled sub-prime mortgage loan "bonds" which brought the house down in 2008, imperiling the savings of millions upon millions of innocent American depositors. Though it took place under the Bush administration, the repeal of Glass-Steagall was a bipartisan affair:
<<In the House, 155 Democrats and 207 Republicans voted for the [repeal], while 51 Democrats, 5 Republicans and 1 independent opposed it. Fifteen members did not vote.>>
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/10-years-later-looking-at-repeal-of-glass-steagall/ (http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/10-years-later-looking-at-repeal-of-glass-steagall/)
The repeal of Glass-Steagall is one of the more noticeable examples of legislative action or inaction (in this case, obviously, action) that created the conditions for the financial melt-down of 2008. But other examples are not hard to find - - you can leave it to the economic historians to determine whether a particular condition was the result of government action or inaction (that is, of legislative criminalization or decriminalization) but in either case the root cause is the same: the financial industry and its legions of highly-paid lobbyists swarming the Hill with only one mission to fulfill: to see that legislation will always favour the industry, either through favourable new bills to be introduced or pushed through or for unfavourable bills to be nipped in the bud, delayed interminably or killed off in committee or on the House or Senate floor.
More specifically, you can look to some of the following activities and ask yourself, was this preventable by legislation, and if so, why was the legislation never put forward? Was such legislation ever put forward? Who put it forward and who killed it? Was it ever prevented by legislation and if so, was the legislation repealed, and if so, by whom and when?
1. Why did the financial institutions (investment banks) that put together the shit bonds in the first place fail to use due diligence in assembling them and why weren't they required to do so? (Many of the shit-bond packages lacked proper or any documentation regarding the nature of the individual mortgages included, such as borrowers' documented ability to repay.)
2. How did the rating acencies fail to use due diligence in assigning triple-A ratings to the sub-prime mortgage bonds and why were they not required to do so by law?
3. Why were the agencies allowed to rate the shit bonds that their investment-house clients were assembling and why wasn't a caveat attached to their rating indicating the extent to which they were dependent upon the investment house assembling the shit-bond for their own income?
4. Why were the investment houses allowed to sell their own product (shit bonds) to their own investor clients without disclosing the obvious conflict of interest AND WITHOUT DISCLOSING THAT THEY HAD INSURED THEMSELVES against default on these and all other similar bonds, i.e., that they were simultaneously selling the shit bond and betting against it?
5. Why were the insurers such as AIG permitted to evade regulations designed to prevent them from insuring exactly against this kind of risk? How were they permitted to issue new forms of insurance (credit default swaps) designed expressly to evade the insurance regulations that would have prevented them from insuring against default on sub-prime mortgage bonds?
That is not an exhaustive list. What it indicates is that even if there was a complete absence of criminal activity, such an absence would testify only to legislative abandonment of any effective regulatory role, in decriminalizing what was formerly criminal or in failing to criminalize what obviously should have been criminal, all in the name of "deregulation," the god of the conservative movement and a god before whom the Democrats were prostrating themselves as well.
sirs, I don't mind telling you that I have invested a fair amount of time in this reply, which I don't mind at all if my investment was in a serious discussion. But I have to tell you, if your reply is in your usual jack-ass format of one or two lines repeating your usual jack-ass mantra of "red is blue, Kryptonite & Superman, etc." as I kind of suspect it will be, then, no hard feelings, but this will be the last time I ever waste replying seriously to any of your posts again.
-
<<Since you are so easily fooled (Note: I was never fooled by Obama) maybe you are being played by Soros and the protesters too.
<<Mikey, stop being fooled by these people!>>
LOL. Kramer, if you look at my posts from BEFORE Occupy Wall Street!, you'll see that I was voicing a lot of the Occupy! ideas before even the Adbusters article came out. Chiefly, that there is no real difference between the GOP and the Dems, that they both are owned by the same special interests, and that they act for the special interests and not for the American people.
You should tell Adbusters and the Occupy! movement to stop listening to ME!!!
-
<<so in otherwords, your analogy is bogus, since there have been no crimes committed, no indictements, nothing that Wall Street or Corporate America has done to warrant the flawed notion of If the government through its criminal code prohibits murder, is it then responsible for every murder that then occurs? If its criminal code prohibits rape, is it then responsible for all rapes? There's been no raping. And as someone apparently needs the reminder one more time, making a profit is not a crime>>
Hah, sorry sirs, you shoulda waited for me to finish, I told you I'd be back shortly. And you're right, making a profit is not a crime. Not in and of itself.
Good, then your anaolgy is demonstrably flawed
But there are many profit-making activities that ARE
Then of course, you'll demonstrate those that ARE a crime, that Wall Street has violated........drum roll.................
(or once were, or should be) a crime.
AHHHHH, the crux of the problem and the core flaw to your entire diatribe. Your hatred, or perhaps its bitter envy, or whatever it may be, at those that make far more than YOU think they should. Folks like you would make it a crime simply to make over X dollars. Folks like that will be shown the door, as that is not the foundation to this country, nor ever will. You can take your communist utopia and play with it in someone else's back yard. In this country, we really appreciate the foundation of freedom. Freedom to succeed, as well as freedom to make really bad decisions.
And news flash, despite your attempts to claim red is blue, the Government was undeniably at fault, at facilitating the economy crashing nose dive its currently taking. The completely poor regulating of Fannie & Freddie, the Government's practical mandate that banks and lending institutions grant loans to folks who had no business purchasing a home at the time, were all ticking time bombs. And the Republicans AND Bush were there, and did nothing. They had control, they had majorities, but Bush pushed for those risk heavy loans, and enough Dems provented any meaningful reform of Freddie & Fannie. And when the Dems took control of the pursestrings in 2006, the keg was lit.
Then add to that completely wreckless spending policies by Obama & company, ripe with all forms of bailouts, and we know are reaping those effects. Not to mention the every increasing stifling regulations being placed on businesses, producing a literal wet-blanket to any chance of early recovery or decreased unemployment.
Government, in its current manifestation, is the biggest reason we find ourselves in this economic disaster. NOT because companies and Wall Street make more money than YOU think they should, but policies put in place, by the Government, both in the ever increasing regulation restrictions, and zero tax reform that allow the continuing quid-pro-quo arrangements, such as what Obama & Solyndra have have gotten away with. The cherry at the top, Obamination Care, which adds to the continued uncertainty at what any company, large or small, is going to have to pay more for in taxes, charges, and mandates, is the source of this country's problems. With everything the Government has thrown at Corporate America and Business, why on earth would they try adding to their payrolls??
-
<<AHHHHH, the crux of the problem [referring to MT's partial list of the Wall St./financial institutions misdeeds leading up to the melt-down of 2008 and his queries as to which of those misdeeds were or should have been Federal crimes] and the core flaw to your entire diatribe. Your hatred, or perhaps its bitter envy, or whatever it may be, at those that make far more than YOU think they should. >>
LOL. Let's call that "sirs misrepresentation/oversimplification #1," or in short, SMO-1. Because I had referred in very specific detail to certain very specific financial actions that were taken over a very specific period of time, from the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 to the financial melt-down of 2008. NONE of the actions referred to involved in any way the participation of professional football players, rock stars, movie stars, neurosurgeons, reality show participants or anyone else who (non-specifically) makes "far more [money] than I think they should."
From the very specific actions of some very specific financial players, sirs has tried to project my complaints into a general rant against anyone making lots of money. Which is not at all what I was talking about. I dealt in specifics which sirs tries to blur out of sight by pretending that my concerns are generally about anyone and everyone who makes what I consider to be too much money. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
<<Folks like you would make it a crime simply to make over X dollars. >>
Really? I would? Where did I say it should be made a crime to make over a certain amount of dollars? Don't bother looking, I'll spare you the trouble. I never said it, so you can't find it. I never said it because I don't believe it. I don't begrudge Bill Gates his money, but even he agrees it's too much, so he's given most of it away. But we weren't talking about Bill Gates, we were talking about very specific folks in the financial industry - - and not once did I mention any specific amount of money as too much for them. What I WAS talking about was specific actions of theirs that led directly to the crashing of the economy in 2008, to the bail-outs. Can we call that SMO-2?
<< In this country, we really appreciate the foundation of freedom. Freedom to succeed, as well as freedom to make really bad decisions. >>
Well, that also is a major oversimplification too. You are not free to lie to a Federal investigator, for example; Martha Stewart found that out when she had to do jail time for it. You are not free at the moment to go out and buy a hit of acid and get stoned out of your mind on it, although you were free to do so any time prior to October 15, 1966 and may become free to do so at any future time that the government decides that it's OK again to do it. You were free to purchase alcoholic beverages in the U.S.A. anytime before Prohibition and anytime after it, but certainly not during it. Investment banks were free to take in commercial banking deposits before Glass-Steagall and any time after the repeal of Glass-Steagall, but not during Glass-Steagall. So many of your "freedoms" can be turned off and on like a tap, whether we are talking about pornography, dope, booze or financial and commercial activities, depending on the whims of the legislature from year to year. That is just a simple fact of history, deny it as you will. Laws can create new crimes out of previously innocent activities and laws can decriminalize what was formerly criminal conduct and make it suddenly legitimate.
Your "freedom to succeed or fail" is basically measured out for you by your legislature. The freedom to make a million bucks by selling dope no longer exists as it once did, but that's not to say it won't be restored again if your law-makers see fit to do so.
<<And news flash, despite your attempts to claim red is blue, the Government was undeniably at fault, at facilitating the economy crashing nose dive its currently taking. >>
I agree. By standing back and doing nothing while their friends and paymasters in corporate America and Wall Street were getting away with murder and finally crashing the economy.
<<The completely poor regulating of Fannie & Freddie, the Government's practical mandate that banks and lending institutions grant loans to folks who had no business purchasing a home at the time, were all ticking time bombs.>>
Well, here we have a gray area. As I understand the "mandate" I think all it did was loosen the restrictions on who could qualify as a borrower. And however it was worded, it certainly did not and could not have mandated loans to "folks who had no business purchasing a home." THAT is a pure absurdity. No government anywhere in the world would authorize any such thing. If anything, it probably loosened a few ratios, such as family income to total purchase price, or down payment as a percentage of purchase price, things like that. The crux of the sub-prime mortgage loan crisis was the making of loans to borrowers who wouldn't have qualified by any standards, and the tailoring of mortgages (no repayment of principal or interest for one year! for two years!) that was DESIGNED to sign up people who didn't even have the means to make the first payments. NONE of this was authorized by Fanny or Freddy, despite the prevailing conservative mythology to the contrary.
<<And when the Dems took control of the pursestrings in 2006, the keg was lit.>>
Not only is that totally meaningless, it's complete bullshit. What specifically are you implying when you say "the keg was lit?" What specific actions did the Democrats take when they had "control of the pursestrings" that "lit the keg?" That is just nonsense. Be specific if you have anything in mind but the point as made is just infantile crap.
For your information, one of the key factors in the melt-down, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, had already occurred in 1999, with full bi-partisan support. The sub-prime loan industry had started even earlier than that, in the early 1990s. You can Google Accredited Home Lenders, Inc. or Aames Financial, The Money Store or Lomas Financial Corp. for more details. They sure as hell weren't just sitting there, waiting around for Fanny Mae to loosen up lending restrictions. That's just more conservative bullshit, invented after the fact to blame the melt-down on government "interference." The pile of shit known as sub-prime mortgages was well underway by the mid-nineties. Mortgage bonds ("mortgage-backed securities") had been around even longer, since the mid-to-late nineteen-seventies, but they were relatively safe investments then, since the quality of the individual mortgages in each bond had to conform to the regulations laid down by Fanny and Freddy (the loosening of which subsequently contributed to, but did not cause, the whole catastrophe that followed.) The infiltration of sub-prime mortgages into mortgage bonds began as soon as a mass market in sub-prime mortgages had developed, which, as I said, was around the early 1990s.
The explosive growth in sub-prime mortgages and the consequent transformation of mortgage bonds (mortgage-backed securities) into shit bonds had absolutely NOTHING to do with government "interference" and EVERYTHING to do with the classic laws of capitalistic business and finance - - as the lending companies acquired more and more original mortgages, they had to raise capital in order to keep growing. The only way they could raise the capital was to sell their assets - - the mortgage loans - - to banks and financial institutions up-stream. Once the new capital was acquired, it too had to be lent out, so that the new mortgage loans could again be assembled and packaged into new shit bonds. As the pool of qualified borrowers dried out, the lenders began looking for anyone to sign their new mortgages - - brokers were paid up-front commissions on each new warm body they could drag to the lender, and the lenders' mortgage terms were altered to appeal to the people who themselves knew that they had no hope in hell of ever repaying unless (a) they won a lottery or found a job or (b) the home they bought would rise so high in value that they'd be able to either re-mortgage or sell at a huge profit. Thus the "balloon mortgage" - - no payments at all for a year or two years, then huge payments so big that they'd probably crap out on the first one. It really didn't matter to the borrowers, for they had no assets anyway, and this at least put them in a home for a limited time, with a chance to pay the mortgage if Lady Luck should choose to smile upon them, and it didn't matter to the lenders because they were going to sell this mortgage with lots of others, bundled into a shit bond with, inexplicably, a triple-A rating or its equivalent from every bond-rating agency.
I want to emphasize that NONE of the above activity was due to "government interference," in fact was permitted only because the government failed to take action to prevent any of it.
The situation was compounded when the financial institutions which assembled and packaged the bonds sold them to their own clients (obviously without due diligence) and certainly without informing the clients that they themselves had obtained insurance against the default of any of these shit bonds (issued as a "credit default swap," a new financial instrument invented so that the insurers could avoid the very government regulations that would have prevented them from insuring against this very risk. Again, none of these activities were due in any way to "government interference" but followed the inevitable laws of profit-seeking inherent in the capitalist system. It is absolutely ludicrous to claim, as you do, that "government regulations made them do it." It was the FAILURE of the government to intervene in any of these shenanigans that caused the melt-down of 2008.
<<Then add . . . wreckless spending policies by Obama & company, ripe with all forms of bailouts. . . >>
ANOTHER CROCK OF SHIT. Do you not understand that by the time of Obama's taking over, all of the above had already happened, including the first bail-out, which was agreed to by Bush AND Obama?
<<Not to mention the every increasing stifling regulations being placed on businesses, producing a literal wet-blanket to any chance of early recovery or decreased unemployment.>>
More fucking conservative bullshit. Glass-Steagall had already been repealed in 1999 and STILL hasn't been re-enacted. A landmark "stifling regulation" standing since the time of FDR was repealed, but do you see any "early recovery" or "decreased unemployment" resulting from that? Borrowing qualifications were, as you yourself claim, loosened by Fannie and Freddie, but you yourself say this helped CAUSE the melt-down, not improve it. Do you think the government's loosening of borrowing requirements was responsible for any "early recovery" or "decreased unemployment?" Where? Because I sure as hell don't see any.
Well, you tell me: exactly what "stifling regulations" have been placed on business by Obama, that have "produced a literal wet blanket" on any chance of early recovery or decreased unemployment, and what evidence do you have that the "stifling regulation" was actually responsible for "wet-blanketing" either early recovery or decreased unemployment? NONE, no evidence at all, I know that, so don't bother to look.
<<Government, in its current manifestation, is the biggest reason we find ourselves in this economic disaster.>>
BULLSHIT. You have absolutely no clue what caused your current economic disaster. I just explained to you, in exquisite detail, how the melt-down of 2008 was caused. Government had no part in it, other than by merely standing aside and watching the financial industry crash the whole economy and then giving them the keys to the Treasury. Capitalism is the sole cause of the disaster because capitalism is a failed system. The wars of capitalism, which are produced by the military-industrial complex and their servants in Congress, NOT by the so-called "government" are another major cause of the disaster. Corporate control of the MSM, which prevents frank public discussion of the problem, is yet another cause. So is campaign funding of candidates for office by special interests, which has proven a humongous disaster for American foreign policy, costing the Treasury trillions in wars and "homeland defence."
<<NOT because companies and Wall Street make more money than YOU think they should . . . >>
Ridiculous. Their only purpose in buying out "your" government is so that they can make obscene amounts of money. They prevent legislative oversight of their activities, so that they can crash the economy and get repaid for their losses out of the Treasury anyway, they keep the country in a perpetual state of war everywhere so that they can scoop up ever-increasing amounts of your tax dollars and they have decided to fuck the American worker up the ass by closing down factories here and opening them all over the Third World. Open your fucking eyes, for Christ sake!! Why the fuck SHOULD they get a free rein to rip off the people when millions don't even have homes or health insurance? OF COURSE they are making too much money, but that's not even the point - - they're making it at YOUR expense and you're can't see it when it's staring you straight in the face.
<< but policies put in place, by the Government, both in the ever increasing regulation restrictions . . . >>
Again, you'll just have to show me what regulations or restrictions this government has enacted that have allowed "Obama & Solyndra [to] have gotten away with." Actually, you'll have to show me exactly what they have "gotten away with." As far as I know, the U.S. government under Obama has made an investment in some kind of green-energy start-up and the investment went bad. Is THAT a crime? Didn't YOU tell ME that the US loves freedom, including freedom to succeed and freedom to fail? So how can you fault Obama for taking a chance on green, when it looked like a good bet to him and his advisors? Don't ALL capitalists make bad bets sometimes?
<< and zero tax reform that allow the continuing quid-pro-quo arrangements, such as what Obama & Solyndra have have gotten away with. >>
I don't get this at all. How does "zero tax reform" allow what Obama & Solyndra "have gotten away with?" Again, exactly WHAT have they "gotten away with?" What "continuing quid-pro-quo arrangements" are you talking about? What does that even mean?
<<The cherry at the top, Obamination Care, which adds to the continued uncertainty at what any company, large or small, is going to have to pay more for in taxes, charges, and mandates, is the source of this country's problems. >>
REALLY? So that's the source of your country's problems? Uncertainty? Geeze, most of us thought it had to be related to the lack of jobs, to the millions and millions of jobs that the corporations sent overseas when they closed their American factories and re-opened elsewhere, to the millions of people homeless and thrown out of their homes, to the millions sick and unemployed without health care. We thought there was a demand-side problem here, just like John Maynard Keynes always said would cause a depression. So it's not demand-side after all, eh, it's just uncertainty? I got it, the businessmen and entrepreneurs of America don't want to make a move because of this "uncertainty" over what their taxes are gonna be. I guess their crystal balls show them EXACTLY everything else about their future projects - - cost and availability of raw material and labour, demand for product, market share of competitors, success or failure of advertising campaigns, volume of sales, etc., but in that whole crystal ball, there's just this one blacked-out area, What Are Their Taxes Gonna Be, and that is the uncertainty that is driving them crazy, preventing them from unleashing all of their entrepreneurial drive, hiring thousands, even millions of workers for their really brilliant projects. But they can't. They can't get off the ground because they don't know how much taxes they'll have to pay. Oh, yeah, that makes a LOT of sense.
I kinda thought that businessmen and entrepreneurs were risk-takers, that because of the great risks that they took, they were entitled to earn more than their workers, much more in fact. So, I mean, geeze, this is really sad, eh? I mean, the great risk-takers of America, the leaders of the world in innovation and vision, they must have suddenly lost their cojones, eh? Like, is it all gone now?
Well, sirs, thanks for the laugh. That was a real treat, to hear the latest conservative, right-wing explanation for the failure of capitalism - - that it's not the high rate of unemployment, the vanished jobs, the lack of purchasing power and demand, it's not the endless foreign wars and ever-escalating costs of homeland defence and endless tax breaks for the rich that have drained your Treasury - - hell no! It all boils down to uncertainty. Hilarious, sirs, absolutely hilarious.
<<With everything the Government has thrown at Corporate America and Business, why on earth would they try adding to their payrolls??>>
I dunno. Because they are risk-takers? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
-
Uncertainty is bad for business, it is the fear that we fear for fear itself.
FDR wasn't wrong about everything.
You havn't grasped what I ment about government causes for the national investment debacle that we seem to be in the middle of.
It isn't like a law against rape causeing rape, it is like a law that permits rape under certain circumstances or when certain conditions are met.
I don't know how Barney Frank keeps getting re-elected , he was one of the leaders of the push to make everyone a home owner, to erase green lines and to lower standards .
There has never been a regulation against bundling several debt instyruments together and selling the resultant bag of loans as a product. But Freddy Mack was not always there to ensure that the lender could make this sort of loan and get out from under it no matter what the real quality of the loans involved might be.
Rating agencys also failed , they are not government agencys , but the Government and everyone elese has come to rely on them. I think that rating agencys being more diligent earlyer would have had the best chance of preventing the whole crash.
-
This one is for sirs and plane.
Firstly, for sirs - - when you were asking what Federal crimes have been committed, I answered that I didn't know, but that I would figure "the Feds" were combing over all the data, trying to sort it all out, and answer exactly that question. We'd know when the indictments were handed down. Well, the indictments haven't been handed down yet, but as an indication of the scope of the investigation, I give you this:
from today's CounterPunch (www.counterpunch.com (http://www.counterpunch.com)), from the article, "Wall Street Firms Spy . . . "
<<At least 700 cameras scour the midtown area and also relay their live feeds into the downtown center where low-wage NYPD, MTA and Port Authority crime stoppers sit alongside high-wage personnel from Wall Street firms that are currently under at least 51 Federal and state corruption probes for mortgage securitization fraud and other matters.>>
At least FIFTY-ONE probes? Holy fuckin' shit, man, even I had no idea as to the scope of this investigation. (Eliot Spitzer, where are ya when we need ya?)
And to answer plane's post before this insomniac goes back to sleep:
<<Uncertainty is bad for business, it is the fear that we fear for fear itself.
<<FDR wasn't wrong about everything.>>
LOL. No, but YOU may very well be. Here's the quotation you had in mind, because I know it by heart: << . . . that the only thing we have to fear ("fe-ah") is: FEAR ITSELF. Nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror ("terrah" - - in my head, right now, from memory, I can actually hear FDR saying this, from the Columbia Records album "I Can Hear It Now" narrated by Fred W. Friendly and Edward R. Murrow) that paralyzes needed efforts to convert RETREAT into ADVANCE.>> The cadence was absolutely unbelievable. Perfect to every beat.
FDR was talking about the fear of the unknown, the fear that kept some Americans from advancing into the changes and the uncertainties of the New Deal. Basically, he was taking the fear that sirs was bleating and whining about and throwing it back in his face - - it is EXACTLY that kind of cowardly fear, fear of "uncertainty" that paralyzes Americans from endorsing or participating in radical new political initiatives.
I would have liked to be able to say that it is also that kind of fear that sirs and you claim is holding back new businesses and new jobs, but that is just total ridiculous right-wing bullshit. All of business is a risk, every businessman and entrepreneur has, in addition to the possibility of higher-than -estimated taxes, hundreds of other critical factors to be concerned about. That they would single out taxes as the one uncertainty among hundreds that prevents them from throwing the dice - - well, that is such a crazy thought it is apparent on its face that it has to be BS. It's always amazing to me that anyone ever falls for that bullshit.
<< It isn't like a law against rape causeing rape, it is like a law that permits rape under certain circumstances or when certain conditions are met.>>
If you want to keep refining a bad analogy, I'll play along with you for the moment, but it's going to end badly for you.
Rapes are isolated acts of individuals or small groups going on all the time sporadically although universally condemned. Rape is not the default status of man-woman relations, and if it ever was, that would have been eons ago. Any law that legalized rape of a stranger under certain conditions would be a radical break from the past, for rape of a stranger was never before acceptable under any conditions. (Marital relations were always an exception and excluded from the laws of rape until recent times - - the abolition of the husband's "right" to non-consensual sex with his wife was not an amendment of the rape laws except to the extent that it removed a legal shield of long standing.)
Commerce, OTOH, is the mainstream of human activity in a capitalist society and was already operating openly and in full swing with no societal or legal restrictions of note, so that government regulation of commerce was not suddenly creating conditions in which the thing regulated suddenly became legal, out of a previous condition of illegality.
Your argument that government regulation makes the government responsible for all breaches of regulation that follow, is on its face STILL absurd, the most recent analogy you offered being clearly inapplicable. I'll give you a better analogy: vehicular traffic on public highways is totally unregulated. As Mr. Ford's products begin to flood the highways, the Provinces begin to enact Highway Traffic Acts, regulating maximum speeds, painting dotted lines on roads and prohibiting passing across solid lines, establishing stop lights and stop signs, etc., etc. Because the government has attempted to regulate traffic, it thereby becomes responsible for the consequences of all future traffic accidents and every breach of the laws it enacted? NONSENSE.
<< I don't know how Barney Frank keeps getting re-elected , he was one of the leaders of the push to make everyone a home owner, to erase green lines and to lower standards .>>
According to you, he reduced the amount of governmental interference in the lending business by making it possible for lenders to loan to more borrowers, namely to those borrowers previously excluded from borrower status by tighter government regulation of who could qualify. Frank therefore LOWERED the degree of government involvement in the lending process, returning more discretion to the lender. He should be a hero to you for LOOSENING government regulation of business.
<<There has never been a regulation against bundling several debt instyruments together and selling the resultant bag of loans as a product.>>
Yeah, actually there were plenty of them. Once upon a time. When mortgage-backed securities were invented back in the mid-seventies, they were legal in only 15 states. It took a lot of "lobbying" (in plain English, payola) for the bonds to become legal in all states, but Wall Street's lobbyists are among the best and the highest paid, and Wall Street's pockets are the deepest. The appropriate legislative changes were purchased in due course by Wall Street and "the rest is history." One of the biggest looting scams of the American public was set in motion. Millions of small investors were wiped out. But what else is new?
<<But Freddy Mack was not always there to ensure that the lender could make this sort of loan and get out from under it no matter what the real quality of the loans involved might be.>>
Well, actually, Freddy and Fanny were both there and doing a good job of making mortgage bonds safe, but then this thing called "deregulation" came along and then all of a sudden they weren't there anymore or they began looking the other way, or there weren't enough of them to make any difference. You know how beautiful deregulation is, every conservative knows that, and believe me, so does Wall Street. In fact, all the pressure for deregulation really starts and ends at Wall Street. Their bought-and-paid for law-makers are just the errand boys who whip the conservative rank-and-file into line with bullshit rationalizations and speeches.
<< Rating agencys also failed , they are not government agencys , but the Government and everyone elese has come to rely on them. I think that rating agencys being more diligent earlyer would have had the best chance of preventing the whole crash.>>
Hahahaha, you DO understand, I hope, how the rating agencies are paid by the very institutions that are bundling the shit bonds and selling them to their own clients? This isn't a case of somebody "failing" because they had too many long lunches and just didn't notice what was going on. This is more of the corruption endemic to the capitalist system - - they were obviously LOOKING THE OTHER WAY for a logical reason. Go figure.
plane, I think what we're looking at is a systematic failure of representative democracy, in that sooner or later the agents of capitalism will find a way to (a) buy off the legislature and (b) effectively silence 90% of the public discussion of what's going on by buying up the MSM as well. It's a multi-stage procedure, just to give one example of which, buying the laws permitting concentration of media ownership had to precede the actual buying up of the MSM and the concentration of media into about half a dozen corporations, which today control almost everything that an American will see or hear, except for whatever he can be an eyewitness to personally.
-
I'm sure you'll get back to us when there's an actual crime that has been committed
-
As Kurt Vonnegut said, the greatest fortunes in the America have been made by men who have committed vile and immoral acts against which no laws had yet been passed. In this case, at least some of the proper laws had been passed, and then revoked by turds like Phil Gramm.
-
As Kurt Vonnegut said, the greatest fortunes in the America have been made by men who have committed vile and immoral acts against which no laws had yet been passed. In this case, at least some of the proper laws had been passed, and then revoked by turds like Phil Gramm.
A free society requires people to have character and morality. Both of those have slowly been eroding ever since the 60's and we all know what the 60's brought. With the destruction of the church and family we have a sick society. All the rules and laws in the world aren't going to fix the problems we have. Roughly 100 million people in the USA and probably $3 billion people around the world need to be exterminated in order to get back to where we were 40 years ago. Of course nobody would be better than me to decide who stays and who goes.
-
As Kurt Vonnegut said, the greatest fortunes in the America have been made by men who have committed vile and immoral acts against which no laws had yet been passed. In this case, at least some of the proper laws had been passed, and then revoked by turds like Phil Gramm.
Like what? Last time I checked it takes more than 1 person to revoke a Federal Law. And if memory serves me right, there have been multiple opportunites for supposed "proper law" to have been reinstated.
Best try again
On a related note, is it even possible for you to make a critical response of anyone, without resorting to 3rd grade namecalling?? :o
-
Your argument that government regulation makes the government responsible for all breaches of regulation that follow, is on its face STILL absurd..........
Oh ,now I understand where we are failing to communicate.
I failed to make my point in the first place, the government is not usually responsible for the result of breeches in the law , but it is always responsible for the direct result of the law, may I say also the government is responsible for the indirect and unintended consequence fo the law as well.
Some regulation is necessacery , as far as regulation improves the confidence of investors that they won't be cheated, regulation is good for companys and investors alike.
But anything can be overdone, government controll of the Mortgage industry was increasing and increasing leading up to the crash , till at the time of the crash the government was the garontor of more than half of all of our mortgages , including the lions share of the really bad ones.
The government was an enabler of bad habits, regulation should be carefully considered and trimmed to fit where it is needfull , but eliminated where it isn't.
-
<<I'm sure you'll get back to us when there's an actual crime that has been committed>>
Well, that'll be quite awhile, first the investigations have to conclude and report to the prosecutors, then the prosecutors have to decide and hand the indictments down to the grand juries, then the grand juries have to deliberate whether the cases should go on to trial, then the trial summonses have to be issued, defences prepared, motions argued and finally trials, then appeals, then more appeals. I probably won't even be alive when the last appeal is exhausted. But - - on the brighter side - - there could be some guilty pleas. You won't need me to get back to you when that happens, if you're still alive then. You'll know it. Even The Wall Street Journal will record them.
But what will be really interesting would be if the investigations conclude that no laws have been broken. (Very unlikely because of the fiduciary relationship between financial advisors and their clients, and the obvious breach of trust arising from the conflict of interest between the investment house that (a) packages the shit bond and (b) sells it to its own client. I'm actually pretty certain that there WILL be criminal indictments handed down, some of which will inevitably result in guilty pleas, if only to allow the prosecutors to gain the cooperation of the early pleaders to rat out their former colleagues, and at the same time, getting the early pleaders the benefits of a sweetheart deal on sentencing.)
But let's say that NO laws were broken. To a guy like sirs, that would be the end of the story. Move on, folks, nothing to see here, everything that was done was perfectly legal, just keep right on moving. More thoughtful folks might begin to wonder, how is it there were no laws to prohibit any of this conduct? These guys, motivated solely by greed, can crash the economy, gamble with depositors' or investors' funds, and recoup all the losses of their gambles from the public purse - - and NONE of what they did was illegal? Why wasn't it? And those are the kind of questions that SHOULD lead to how the country is governed and how it is corrupted.
-
<<Last time I checked it takes more than 1 person to revoke a Federal Law. And if memory serves me right, there have been multiple opportunites for supposed "proper law" to have been reinstated.>>
sirs sees all the dots and he can't connect them.
un-be-lievable
-
Washington got what it wanted , the laws were a part and parcel in the problem.
There isn't really a reason to expect more wisdom or even better motives from the government than from large profit making corporations.
-
<<I'm sure you'll get back to us when there's an actual crime that has been committed>>
Well, that'll be quite awhile.
Nice to have "outs", isn't it. So, until then your original analogy is hopelessly devoid of any substance that would allow someone to take it seriously
But let's say that NO laws were broken. To a guy like sirs, that would be the end of the story. Move on, folks, nothing to see here, everything that was done was perfectly legal, just keep right on moving. More thoughtful folks might begin to wonder, how is it there were no laws to prohibit any of this conduct?
Since, in this country, we have the freedom to succeed, as long as no laws are broken in the process, there is no conduct to be noted. Nothing wrong with greed, so long as no laws are broken. And despite your opinion, greed is not what crashed this country. Power did. The power to direct, if not dictate how businesses are to be run, how loans are to be approved, what companies are to be propped with tax payer $$$'s, and what ones are to be demonized. As I said, in your world, you'd apply the law against anyone daring to make more than some 3rd party Governmental entity declares as ok
But, again, nice to see your "out" you've adopted....well if no laws were broken, there should have been, right? No one's allowed to make that kind of money....except of course Hollywood Celebrities and Professional Athletes 8)
-
<<So, until then your original analogy is hopelessly devoid of any substance that would allow someone to take it seriously>>
Of course, the 51 separate state and federal investigations going on as we speak are evidence of absolutely nothing, there is zero likelihood of any of them leading to successful criminal prosecutions and sirs KNOWS what a waste of their time it all is. Anyone who thinks that there's a reasonable likelihood of successful criminal prosecutions emerging from this, based only on the fact that 51 separate state and federal prosecutors' are investigating, is clearly basing his prediction on a hopeless void. No one can take seriously the work of 51 separate state and federal investigations because we all know that never before in the history of the USA has a state or federal prosecutor's investigation EVER resulted in successful criminal prosecutions. NEVER. No serious person can take seriously the idea that maybe someone will be convicted of anything as a result of 51 separate federal and state prosecutors' investigations. How could they?
For sirs, I have only one question: ARE YOU FUCKING NUTS?
-
You know Tee....I lost track of all the separate investigations, both State and Federal, of supposed price gouging by the likes of "Big Oil". And that landed.....how many prosecutions again??
Screeching about current investigations is nothing, until actual indictments are handed out. Congress prides itself at "doing something", when there's some twisted level of public outcry, by some faction of the U.S., thus they launch "investigations, to get to the bottom of it", whatever it supposedly is. Makes them feel like their earning their pay.
So, get back to me when there's an actual crime, much less "rape". Then we can start discussing your currently debunked analogy, with some remote semblance of seriousness
-
The FTC investigation came to nothing, but many states tried to enforce anti-gouging legislation.
People of NY vs Wever Petroleum, a price-gouging case, resulted in the imposition of a $2,000 fine and an injunction.
827 N.Y.S. 2d 813 (2006)
Many price-gouging charges were brought against gas station owners and were settled. Many others were dismissed without trial because of difficulty of proof. Connecticut brought price-gouging charges against several gasoline companies, which were settled by payment of fines, one of the fines being about $45,000, though the average fine was much, much less. Missouri brought charges of price gouging against 48 gas stations, all of which settled upon payment of a fine.
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/eblj/issues/volume4/number1/Bae.pdf (http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/eblj/issues/volume4/number1/Bae.pdf)
Price gouging is notoriously difficult to prove, since nobody seems to know where to draw the line between making an honest profit and "gouging." In contrast, conflict of interest cases are much easier to prove as are breach of trust cases when the trust was between a stockbroker or investment banker and his client. The public fury, as evidenced by the Occupy Wall Street! movement makes these cases, when they arise, much less likely to settle than the oil gouging cases were.
So, contrary to your recollection, quite a few price gouging cases came out of the various investigations, although nothing from the FTC investigation itself. I seriously doubt whether the number of price-gouging investigations was anywhere near 51.
Contrary to what you might think, there are very good grounds for believing that criminal indictments, plus some convictions, will arise out of these 51 ongoing investigations.
-
LOL...your opinion of good grounds is no more founded than your opinion of price gouging, that included a plethora of State and Federal Investigations, and amounted to 0 indictments, much less prosecutions, much less convictions
So, get back to me when there's an actual crime, much less "rape". Then we can start discussing your currently debunked analogy, with some remote semblance of seriousness
-
<<So, get back to me when there's an actual crime, much less "rape". Then we can start discussing your currently debunked analogy, with some remote semblance of seriousness>>
seriousness?
You mean, seriousness as in, "Although Lehman Bros. and Goldman Sachs made billions by packaging and selling shit bonds to whoever would buy them INCLUDING THEIR OWN CLIENTS, and AIG issued what were effectively insurance policies against default on bonds which didn't even have documentation of homeowners' ability to repay in many cases, and primary lenders created mortgages that could appeal only to the impecunious, for resale with triple-A ratings to other investors up-stream, 51 state and federal agencies now investigating the entire series of transactions will not be able to find evidence of any criminal acts such as, for example, fraud?"
Or, do you mean, seriousness as in, it's OK if no laws were broken in any of the above shenanigans even if they cost the life savings and/or pensions of millions of innocent Americans because none of that activity SHOULD be criminalized, since it's part of our freedom as Americans to be free to be ripped off by complex financial transactions designed to benefit the richest of the rich at the expense of the rest of America?
I can see that you're a very "serious" guy, sirs. The problem, as always with you, is in the definition of the words you like to throw around - - what you like to call seriousness, most other folks would probably refer to as extreme stupidity or perhaps even insanity.
-
Lets not totally discount the possibility that poorly thought out law was observed and complied with .
Regulation that causes the opposite of its intended purpose is a pretty common historical experience.
-
<<So, get back to me when there's an actual crime, much less "rape". Then we can start discussing your currently debunked analogy, with some remote semblance of seriousness>>
seriousness?
Yea, seriousness....as when you start including the Fed in your equation of those you opine should have broken some non-existant laws
Lets not totally discount the possibility that poorly thought out law was observed and complied with .
Regulation that causes the opposite of its intended purpose is a pretty common historical experience.
Well concluded, Plane
-
<<Lets not totally discount the possibility that poorly thought out law was observed and complied with .>>
OK plane, so in percentage terms, how likely do you think it is that none of the participants causing the melt-down of 2008 broke any federal or state laws?
<<Regulation that causes the opposite of its intended purpose is a pretty common historical experience.>>
Especially where the regulation is drafted and paid for by the institutions that are supposed to be regulated by it?
Do you believe that the outlawing of LSD has caused LSD usage to increase?
Do you believe that the laws forbidding export of technical material to Iran have cause more technical materia to be exported to Iran than would otherwise have been exported?
Do you believe that the ban on purchase of Cuban goods has caused more Americans to buy Cuban goods than would otherwise have been purchased?
Do you believe that laws against aiding and assisting terrorism in the U.S.A. have caused more Americans to aid and assist terrorists than would have done so had the act not been forbidden by law?
Do you believe that laws designating organizations such as Hamas as terrorist groups combined with laws that prevent providing financial support to terrorist organizations have caused more Americans to send money to Hamas than would have been the case had the designation not been made?
-
Dear little boys and girls, plus the two retards WeWe and Snowblower.
People are selfish. People are greedy. People are inconsiderate. People are intolerant. That's the way it is. If you put a cat in a dog's pen it won't suddenly bark. If you stuff a dog in a cats cage it won't suddenly meow. It doesn't matter whether people are under communism or a democracy, they will remain essentially as they are. The benefit of a democracy is that it admits that, and allows for it. Sometimes it allows for too much, sometimes not enough. It has to be tweaked now and again. Today we have a new phenomenon. Globalization. We are going to have to go trough a long period of tweaking before we get it right. Or, as right as possible. In the mean time the entire world will be tweaking away for decades to come. A major war may break out and take center stage over the smaller ones. Great shifts don't usually take place without them. If Snowblower is still alive when this major war breaks out he and WeWe and sirs will be crying in their beer over it because that's all they know.
Hopefully most of the rest of you scoundrels will be like me and enjoy the sounds, sights, and feel, of the universe before we all become food for the worms.
BSB
-
Dear little boys and girls, plus the two retards WeWe and Snowblower.
People are selfish. People are greedy. People are inconsiderate. People are intolerant. That's the way it is. If you put a cat in a dog's pen it won't suddenly bark. If you stuff a dog in a cats cage it won't suddenly meow. It doesn't matter whether people are under communism or a democracy, they will remain essentially as they are. The benefit of a democracy is that it admits that, and allows for it. Sometimes it allows for too much, sometimes not enough. It has to be tweaked now and again. Today we have a new phenomenon. Globalization. We are going to have to go trough a long period of tweaking before we get it right. Or, as right as possible. In the mean time the entire world will be tweaking away for decades to come. A major war may break out and take center stage over the smaller ones. Great shifts don't usually take place without them. If Snowblower is still alive when this major war breaks out he and WeWe and sirs will be crying in their beer over it because that's all they know.
Hopefully most of the rest of you scoundrels will be like me and enjoy the sounds, sights, and feel, of the universe before we all become food for the worms.
BSB
Sounds like good advice. I'll pass it along to the protesters.
-
Don't drink beer, but thanks for the consideration. Good to see some additional contribution B. Don't be a stranger
-
Major war? Why not? Somehow the universe always manages to dispose of its own evil even when mankind seems paralyzed by fear or moral weakness. Something will terminate the reign of The World's Only Terrorist Superpower, and war's as good a bet as any. I'm just hoping that Revolution comes first. Without a hell of a lot to base that hope on, but sometimes, miracles do happen.
-
Major war? Why not? Somehow the universe always manages to dispose of its own evil even when mankind seems paralyzed by fear or moral weakness. Something will terminate the reign of The World's Only Terrorist Superpower, and war's as good a bet as any. I'm just hoping that Revolution comes first. Without a hell of a lot to base that hope on, but sometimes, miracles do happen.
we all end up dead sooner or later. some might end up like Saddam, Osama, & Gadaffi while others die in their sleep.