Politics

[wizards8507]

Hmm...location says Bristol...could it be?

Da da da. Da da da.

 

[Cackalacky]

I work for one of the biggest Corporate Overlords there is and I'm very happy with my salary. I'm 25 and come from a quite modest home, neither parent possessing a college degree until my mom went to night school in her late 30s.


Who else would bear the tax burden? Corporations? All taxes ultimately fall on individuals, whether through income, sales tax, higher prices, or lower wages.

Awesome! Me too. Now, lots of my friends..... Not so much. And I think you miss my ultimate point which is that corporations receive all the reward and have to accept little to no risk. Yes corporations should pay taxes. How much is up for debate.

 

[wizards8507]

I love this. Elizabeth Warren is trying to shut down the government and the Republicans are going to get blamed for it.

 

[phgreek]

I love this. Elizabeth Warren is trying to shut down the government and the Republicans are going to get blamed for it.

...Predictable, the press are Obama Shills...they suck, and probably the job with the LEAST amount of integrity on the planet is a Producer of a "news" broadcast...they are evil people who deserve to have their asses kicked daily. Maybe we should take the lead of anti gun folks and publish all their names and addresses...

However, with regard to current budget developments...

-I agree with MS. Warren..IF her assesment of the changes to Dodd-Frank are true.
-I also support Senator Mike Lee for voting no on the Defense appropriation IF it is as full of pork as he says.
- I think Mr Obama stuck his thumb in the eye of the republicans with the Immigration EO...and he literally paid no price for it...none.
-I think Boehner needs to go...he is burning the good will voters showed in republicans from the last mid term before those poor bastards ever get there..."business as usual" bullshit.

 

[wizards8507]

-I agree with MS. Warren..IF her assesment of the changes to Dodd-Frank are true.

Solution: Get the federal government the hell out of the financial services insurance business all together. There's no reason nor constitutional authority for it. Congress can regulate interstate commerce, not engage in it. If the taxpayers aren't on the hook for the banks' failures, then it doesn't matter a hill of beans whether derivatives and core services are under the same umbrella.

-I also support Senator Mike Lee for voting no on the Defense appropriation IF it is as full of pork as he says.

Agreed.

-I think Mr Obama stuck his thumb in the eye of the republicans with the Immigration EO...and he literally paid no price for it...none.

Agreed.

-I think Boehner needs to go...he is burning the good will voters showed in republicans from the last mid term before those poor bastards ever get there..."business as usual" bullshit.

Yup. Republican leadership (including the Karl Rove consultant class) is completely idiotic. They're afraid of these polls that say people will "blame" the Republicans for a government shutdown. Hey Boehner, what happened the last time you shut down the government? Oh, nobody really cared and you won a landslide election a year later.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Remember, only Republicans are corrupt corporatists who sell out for $$ and put their interests and reelection above what's the right thing to do.

<iframe width="480" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/0R6JSkf1O_8?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

A fucking soap opera producer... for no other reason than that she raised millions for him.

One day people will wake up to the fact that THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS BESIDES WHO THEY SHILL TO... but that day will probably be long after I'm gone from this earth.

TBF giving out the chill ambassadorships to political allies is nothing new in American politics. I mean, it's not like Benny Franklin was a career diplomat, but he was still our man in France.

 

[phgreek]

TBF giving out the chill ambassadorships to political allies is nothing new in American politics. I mean, it's not like Benny Franklin was a career diplomat, but he was still our man in France.

Do you think Benny knew anything about France ...or took it upon himself to learn some prior to his assignment? Even if you aren't the best selection you can put some effort into it.

I know there are career folks that serve to prepare for that gig...and I know ambassadorships are often awarded as political rewards....but the least people could do is have a basic understanding of the history, economy, geography...and current events that play a role in their host country...dude, you know the recent crop of ambassadors didn't even put in the minimum effort, and are therefore an embarrassment to themselves and this country...SMH.

 

[woolybug25]

Solution: Get the federal government the hell out of the financial services insurance business all together. There's no reason nor constitutional authority for it. Congress can regulate interstate commerce, not engage in it. If the taxpayers aren't on the hook for the banks' failures, then it doesn't matter a hill of beans whether derivatives and core services are under the same umbrella.

Section 8 of the Constitution permits Congress to coin money and regulate it's value. Considering that rates are subject to the Feds, I do not see how it would ever be rational for the federal government to not have a part in financial services. Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson debated this famously during the creation of the US Constitution, in regards to a National Bank. Which of course, we do not have.

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 13 states, "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." So in essence, Congress has the power to delegate to other agencies. One of these, is the Federal Reserve.

So to say that "There's no reason nor constitutional authority for it" is untrue. The Constitution clearly give the Federal government, at a minimum, the ability to coin money, regulate it's value and delegate any authority thereafter. So we can debate on what level the Feds should mettle into the banking industry, but to say they have no Constitutional right is untrue.

 

[wizards8507]

So to say that "There's no reason nor constitutional authority for it" is untrue. The Constitution clearly give the Federal government, at a minimum, the ability to coin money, regulate it's value and delegate any authority thereafter. So we can debate on what level the Feds should mettle into the banking industry, but to say they have no Constitutional right is untrue.

Insuring bank deposits is neither coining money nor regulating its value. Furthermore, the Constitution dictates the MAXIMUM power of the State, not the minimum as you said.

 

[phgreek]

Section 8 of the Constitution permits Congress to coin money and regulate it's value. Considering that rates are subject to the Feds, I do not see how it would ever be rational for the federal government to not have a part in financial services. Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson debated this famously during the creation of the US Constitution, in regards to a National Bank. Which of course, we do not have.

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 13 states, "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." So in essence, Congress has the power to delegate to other agencies. One of these, is the Federal Reserve.

So to say that "There's no reason nor constitutional authority for it" is untrue. The Constitution clearly give the Federal government, at a minimum, the ability to coin money, regulate it's value and delegate any authority thereafter. So we can debate on what level the Feds should mettle into the banking industry, but to say they have no Constitutional right is untrue.

Still struggle with this...I mean hell wall street had instances where they were playing both sides...and in high risk derivatives...just no way to justify that...

I mean hell Vegas has regulations, and no one has real expectations of "growing" an investment in Vegas

...Wall street needs some good ole' Teddy R trust busting followed by some smart regulation...

 

[wizards8507]

...Wall street needs some good ole' Teddy R trust busting followed by some smart regulation...

Why? If you let the banks fail they'll regulate themselves. The only reason they take the stupid risks they do is because the government is standing behind them with a bailout check for whatever goes wrong.

 

[phgreek]

Why? If you let the banks fail they'll regulate themselves. The only reason they take the stupid risks they do is because the government is standing behind them with a bailout check for whatever goes wrong.

right...busting them up proactively makes them small enough to fail w/o screwing the rest of us over, and makes your scenario possible...I totally agree with natural market forces...but these guys all believe in conglomeration to avoid that very thing...

 

[wizards8507]

right...busting them up proactively makes them small enough to fail w/o screwing the rest of us over, and makes your scenario possible...I totally agree with natural market forces...but these guys all believe in conglomeration to avoid that very thing...

Government intervention isn't the solution to conglomeration, it's a cause.

Main Street Libertarians | The American Conservative

Libertarian populists believe the game is rigged against the little guy in a more fundamental way: government is self-interested and self-dealing. What the backers of McCain-Feingold and critics of Citizens United see as a bug, libertarian populists believe is a design feature of big government and corporatism.

Bigger companies use regulations to stifle their smaller competitors, exploiting public interests like health, welfare, and environmental protection for private gain. Government subsidies don’t just go to poor people; they flow to General Electric, General Motors, and Goldman Sachs.

 

[phgreek]

Government intervention isn't the solution to conglomeration, it's a cause.

Main Street Libertarians | The American Conservative

in telecon...can't respond but will...

 

[Buster Bluth]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/IfzNWB_JQmU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/WjYTcKQKcS8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[ickythump1225]

right...busting them up proactively makes them small enough to fail w/o screwing the rest of us over, and makes your scenario possible...I totally agree with natural market forces...but these guys all believe in conglomeration to avoid that very thing...

Yes but they were only allowed to grow so big because the government was backing them every step of the way. The government has the game rigged in favor of big corporations getting bigger. Excess government regulations end up hurting small and medium sized businesses more because they cannot afford to find the loopholes and escape clauses whereas giant firms with an army of lawyers essentially help Congress write legislation so they know the bills, where the loopholes are, and can afford to shift through them.

Also the culture of bailouts helps banks grown bigger as they will take greater risks than they normally would and sometimes those risks pay off with giant rewards, but like a gambler on a hot streak in Vegas at some point the luck dries up. At that point those banks and investment firms are so bloated they can plead "too big to fail" and get a bail out. People then often demand more government oversight, extra regulations, and more intervention however that is like treating an alcoholic with whiskey.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I'd vigorously support any candidate who credibly promised to break up the mega-banks. Big Finance is arguably the greatest threat to our republic.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Yes but they were only allowed to grow so big because the government was backing them every step of the way. The government has the game rigged in favor of big corporations getting bigger. Excess government regulations end up hurting small and medium sized businesses more because they cannot afford to find the loopholes and escape clauses whereas giant firms with an army of lawyers essentially help Congress write legislation so they know the bills, where the loopholes are, and can afford to shift through them.

That is true much of the time, but it's important to not take away from the countless important regulations too. The people who would be taking away regulations are often the very same corporate-bought Congressmen and would surely take away the regulations their corporate daddies don't want.

Also the culture of bailouts helps banks grown bigger as they will take greater risks than they normally would and sometimes those risks pay off with giant rewards, but like a gambler on a hot streak in Vegas at some point the luck dries up. At that point those banks and investment firms are so bloated they can plead "too big to fail" and get a bail out.

So, naturally, if you're too big to fail then you're too big to exist. If the sheer size of your corporation makes your failure a national security issue, it's time to be chopped up.

People then often demand more government oversight, extra regulations, and more intervention however that is like treating an alcoholic with whiskey.

I don't see that line of thinking at all.

 

[Wild Bill]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/IfzNWB_JQmU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I'd love to see his portfolio right now. I'm sure those evil corporations made him a wealthy man.

 

[GoIrish41]

I'd vigorously support any candidate who credibly promised to break up the mega-banks. Big Finance is arguably the greatest threat to our republic.

Why stop with banks? How about big oil? Giant healthcare companies? Insurers? Corporate food producers? These are at least as big a threat, no?

 

[woolybug25]

Insuring bank deposits is neither coining money nor regulating its value. Furthermore, the Constitution dictates the MAXIMUM power of the State, not the minimum as you said.

How is insuring deposits not regulating the value? If banks were losing everyone's money, not putting provisions in place to mitigate loan losses, and losing mass amounts of deposit revenue, then that would all domino into the overall value of a dollar. Bank rates would immedietely skyrocket.

Also, it clearly outlines the constitutional right for the government to print money, where do you think that money goes? Do you think they hand it out on street corners? It goes into banks. Who do you think underwrites government bonds? Banks...

I'd vigorously support any candidate who credibly promised to break up the mega-banks. Big Finance is arguably the greatest threat to our republic.

I don't buy that we are a top heavy bank market. Last I checked, there are like 5,000 different banks in the US. Compare that to Canada's 3. We are in a contracting market where we are seeing smaller banks getting eaten up. So if you see anything, it will be big finance growing stronger, not the other way around. For whatever that's worth.

Btw, you trying to put me in the poor house, brother?

 

[connor_in]

What the hell are you guys doing in here? Someone posted Skylar pics in the 2015 master list thread

 

[Cackalacky]

How is insuring deposits not regulating the value? If banks were losing everyone's money, not putting provisions in place to mitigate loan losses, and losing mass amounts of deposit revenue, then that would all domino into the overall value of a dollar. Bank rates would immedietely skyrocket.

Also, it clearly outlines the constitutional right for the government to print money, where do you think that money goes? Do you think they hand it out on street corners? It goes into banks. Who do you think underwrites government bonds? Banks...



I don't buy that we are a top heavy bank market. Last I checked, there are like 5,000 different banks in the US. Compare that to Canada's 3. We are in a contracting market where we are seeing smaller banks getting eaten up. So if you see anything, it will be big finance growing stronger, not the other way around. For whatever that's worth.

Btw, you trying to put me in the poor house, brother?

I think I read that six banks control 90% of the derivatives market. That is dangerous, especially now their high risk bets are insured. I could be wrong but that seems very scary considering what they did last time.

 

[Cackalacky]

What the hell are you guys doing in here? Someone posted Skylar pics in the 2015 master list thread

 

[ickythump1225]

That is true much of the time, but it's important to not take away from the countless important regulations too. The people who would be taking away regulations are often the very same corporate-bought Congressmen and would surely take away the regulations their corporate daddies don't want.



So, naturally, if you're too big to fail then you're too big to exist. If the sheer size of your corporation makes your failure a national security issue, it's time to be chopped up.



I don't see that line of thinking at all.

Government interference, regulations, and meddling created the conditions for those mega banks to exist. Increased government interference, regulations, and meddling won't solve the problem. Capitalism is a system with built in "regulations" in that poorly run companies that take unnecessary risks will eventually lose out in the long run. That opens up capital, human resources, and space in the market for more efficient and well run organizations to take their place.

When you create an atmosphere where you can essentially write legislation to choke out the competition and get bailed out no matter how poorly you screw up it destroys the essential tenants of capitalism. When risk is basically taken out of the equation you find yourself in the situation we are presently in, which is basically unchecked power for giant companies backed by the regulatory apparatus of the federal government and funded by the taxpayers.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I think I read that six banks control 90% of the derivatives market. That is dangerous, especially now their high risk bets are insured. I could be wrong but that seems very scary considering what they did last time.

One of Nader's "17 Solutions" was a .5% tax on derivative sales. I know nothing about financial system...what are your/everyone's thoughts? His rational is that we should first tax the things we don't like before we tax the things we do, derivatives being something we don't. A .5% tax on sales would amount to $300 billion in revenue.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I'd love to see his portfolio right now. I'm sure those evil corporations made him a wealthy man.

This is the sort of thing that gets us nowhere in conversation.

Every man in the history of civilization is a man on contradiction. I don't ignore Thomas Jefferson's views on liberty because he owned slaves. I don't ignore Nader's views on the role of corporations in the world because he might participate in a fund that buys their stock.

 

[Cackalacky]

One of Nader's "17 Solutions" was a .5% tax on derivative sales. I know nothing about financial system...what are your/everyone's thoughts? His rational is that we should first tax the things we don't like before we tax the things we do, derivatives being something we don't. A .5% tax on sales would amount to $300 billion in revenue.

I think that 0.5% is a pittance for the damage they could do now they are insured. I don't know how I think about taxing things we don't like first. Maybe I am misunderstanding but I don't mind paying taxes for things that are purposeful like roads etc. I do however dislike paying taxes for things like a permanent state of war and financing the 1% power struggle.

 

[woolybug25]

I think I read that six banks control 90% of the derivatives market. That is dangerous, especially now their high risk bets are insured. I could be wrong but that seems very scary considering what they did last time.

Not sure if it's that high since Dodd Frank, but it will always be heavily loaded onto the bigger banks because they are the ones capable of holding them. Smaller banks don't have the balance sheets to hold that kind of paper, so they write them, then sell them to bigger banks for a fee. Everyone blames the big banks for derivative problems, but they buy more from small banks than originate themselves.

People get all up in arms about derivatives, but the reality is that the majority of derivatives in the market are your basic future trading (grains, oil, etc) and rate swaps. Both of which are completely legitimate hedging tools.

 

[Cackalacky]

Not sure if it's that high since Dodd Frank, but it will always be heavily loaded onto the bigger banks because they are the ones capable of holding them. Smaller banks don't have the balance sheets to hold that kind of paper, so they write them, then sell them to bigger banks for a fee. Everyone blames the big banks for derivative problems, but they buy more from small banks than originate themselves.

People get all up in arms about derivatives, but the reality is that the majority of derivatives in the market are your basic future trading (grains, oil, etc) and rate swaps. Both of which are completely legitimate hedging tools.

I am not sure about the exact number and I will try this find my source. It came up when that Citibank written bill got attached to the spending bill.

My problem is the gambling with our money. They can gamble with their own money and lose it all they want. The guts of Dodd Frank have been removed even as toothless as it was. Crashing my retirement fund isn't something I am going to enjoy.