Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Bankers shovelling money to Hillary amidst rumors of Warren candidacy

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Bankers shovelling money to Hillary amidst rumors of Warren candidacy

    Originally posted by MattInFla View Post
    Nothing new here - Hillary has been on the financial industry donor list for a long time.

    Money and Votes Aligned in Congress's Last Debate Over Bank Regulation - OpenSecrets Blog

    Notice who tops the list. Notice who #2 is. And folks like Blue Doggy and Jet57 wonder why Obama is doing nothing about Wall Street.....
    I don't wonder anymore, but I did for awhile after he was elected.

    But I like the fact that some on the left and some on the right see the Achilles heel of too big to fail banks. Although I cannot in my wildest imagination see this to change. And the reason is canidates need banking money and influence to win, and then to keep their power.

    We will have to get the money out of elections for anything to change. Because the money will not allow those changes..

    Matt, the first thing I thought when I read that linked article(thanks) was that the dems got slightly more on average because the republicans were already pro deregulation. So it's not like the banks had to win them over. You will also notice that the repeal of glass stegal was concocted by.....wait for it....drumroll......Republicans.

    So, G-S was passed decades ago because it was thought the gambling of the banks with the public's money helped to cause the great depression. So it was passed and we really didn't have another financial meltdown until it was repealed. 1 +1+ 2? Who woulda thunk it?? LOL Repubs saw it as a way to kick some more dirt on the grave of FDR, no doubt. The bankers had been working for it for 66 years.

    You can never trust a banker. The greed for more profits is a disease. That is why G_S was passed to begin with, because you cannot trust human beings who are bankers. Because of the vast amount of potential profits involved.
    Last edited by Blue Doggy; 11-15-2013, 06:30 AM.

    ?


    • #17
      Re: Bankers shovelling money to Hillary amidst rumors of Warren candidacy

      Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
      Then why was it that the republicans are the ones who went after deregulating the financial sector? Have you so easily forgotten the mantra in 1980? That gov't was the problem? That gov't needs to get out of the way? It did and then we had the S and L crisis after that. That Clinton deserted the average American after that is true.

      But these too big to fail banks would probably have never arisen if not for the repubs, the pro business, pro banking repubs coming back. You know what allowed banks to become so huge? DEREGULATION. Who hates regulations, the dems or the repubs? LOL Nice try.
      Oh, my.

      You REALLY should not read this article: Money and Votes Aligned in Congress's Last Debate Over Bank Regulation - OpenSecrets Blog

      Your head might explode. You see, the most accurate predictor of whether or not a Congress member voted for deregulation was NOT party affiliation, it was how much money that Congress member received from the financial sector. Democrats and Republicans alike.

      On second thought - I DARE you to read the article. Look at the table, and see who voted for deregulation. There's a who's who of Democrats on that list. From Pelosi to Reid to Ted Kennedy. All your idols in the Democratic Party, trading cash for Yes votes on deregulation.

      And you still support them blindly.

      ?


      • #18
        Re: Bankers shovelling money to Hillary amidst rumors of Warren candidacy

        Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
        Then why was it that the republicans are the ones who went after deregulating the financial sector? Have you so easily forgotten the mantra in 1980? That gov't was the problem? That gov't needs to get out of the way? It did and then we had the S and L crisis after that. That Clinton deserted the average American after that is true.

        But these too big to fail banks would probably have never arisen if not for the repubs, the pro business, pro banking repubs coming back. You know what allowed banks to become so huge? DEREGULATION. Who hates regulations, the dems or the repubs? LOL Nice try.
        This reminds me of a famous Reagan quote. "It's not that liberals don't know anything, it's just that so much of what they know is wrong."

        The S & L crisis happened expressly because of government policy. S & L' s were heavily invested in commercial real estate. Those properties were being used as tax write offs by many business people and the government wasn't happy about the loss of tax revenue so they changed the rules on commercial property tax accounting. This made a lot of investors sell their commercial real estate, effectively popping the bubble on those properties and making them near worthless. The same results as the housing bubble. Had government stayed out of the way and left the rules the way they were, there would have been no problem.

        ?


        • #19
          Re: Bankers shovelling money to Hillary amidst rumors of Warren candidacy

          Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
          This reminds me of a famous Reagan quote. "It's not that liberals don't know anything, it's just that so much of what they know is wrong."

          The S & L crisis happened expressly because of government policy. S & L' s were heavily invested in commercial real estate. Those properties were being used as tax write offs by many business people and the government wasn't happy about the loss of tax revenue so they changed the rules on commercial property tax accounting. This made a lot of investors sell their commercial real estate, effectively popping the bubble on those properties and making them near worthless. The same results as the housing bubble. Had government stayed out of the way and left the rules the way they were, there would have been no problem.
          And so in your conservative mind, deregulation had absolutely nothing to do with anything? Now I have not researched it, on this S and L deal, and my memory is going, but it seems that I recall the deregulation of the Savings and Loans having something to do with this. I could be wrong, I will give you that. I also recall the problem as involving disintermediation. I recall people going to jail, unlike what happened with the crash of 08.

          Oldman, if you leave everything up to the better side of human nature, you will inevitably be disappointed, no matter how much as an ideology you might believe in it. If you don't post speed limit signs, more people will drive too fast for conditions. You have no trouble at all seeing the moral failings of this society, yet you still believe in the better side of human nature when it comes to making profits? You do not reside in the universe I reside in sir. Every comment you make in regards to rules and regulations proves it. You don't like rules. Which tells me you are really an anarchist, although you would never admit such.

          Humanity has found that in certain areas rules are essential. How did they discover such a thing? I know this, and I prefer to only have rules when without them more people are hurt because of the lack of such rules. The gov't has to lay down rules, if they are doing things in the best interest of the nation, its people. This is done because we know damn well we cannot trust men driven by the bad side of human nature. And greed is one of the most powerful downsides of human nature. It has written the history of humanity.

          ?


          • #20
            Re: Bankers shovelling money to Hillary amidst rumors of Warren candidacy

            Originally posted by Good1 View Post
            and it it has been increasing since George Soros came aboard her PAC as the finance chair.
            It has been increasing since we started deregulation the banking and finance sector. Those deregs have given the banksters the most power and influence since they were regulated, because it was seen they had something to do with the great depression, and we didn't want them to repeat it. Today the most powerful lobby in DC is not the big corporations anymore. It is banking.

            ?


            • #21
              Re: Bankers shovelling money to Hillary amidst rumors of Warren candidacy

              Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
              This reminds me of a famous Reagan quote. "It's not that liberals don't know anything, it's just that so much of what they know is wrong."

              The S & L crisis happened expressly because of government policy. S & L' s were heavily invested in commercial real estate. Those properties were being used as tax write offs by many business people and the government wasn't happy about the loss of tax revenue so they changed the rules on commercial property tax accounting. This made a lot of investors sell their commercial real estate, effectively popping the bubble on those properties and making them near worthless. The same results as the housing bubble. Had government stayed out of the way and left the rules the way they were, there would have been no problem.
              Agreed.

              The government provided the motivation for the market to take on toxic mortgages via the CRA (banks being criminally charged by the government for denying unqualified borrowers), and then also provided the motivation for Fannie and Freddie to buy up all those toxic mortgages.

              So then by government oversight direction a demand for toxic mortgages was created, and a supply of toxic mortgages was created.
              You were expecting the markets NOT to react to this stimuli, to these conditions as set by the government? Isn't that rather naive?

              ?


              • #22
                Re: Bankers shovelling money to Hillary amidst rumors of Warren candidacy

                Originally posted by Good1 View Post
                Great find, Quinn.

                I am SO saving that as a favorite so I can return time after time. I note they only have up through the 2012 election. It will be interesting to see the 2014 numbers and, then, the 2016 numbers.
                I agree. Thanks. I just put it on my favorites bar, and will spend some time reading that site in the future.

                ?


                • #23
                  Re: Bankers shovelling money to Hillary amidst rumors of Warren candidacy

                  Originally posted by Quinn View Post
                  Very true, although useful, it is limited & as transparency is chipped away, it becomes more difficult (but not impossible) to 'follow ...'.

                  'Following the money' always seems to be useful when it comes to answering the question, 'Cui bono?'

                  Take this for an example of chipping away at transparency:

                  ACTION ALERT: STOCK Act Reversal Signed by President - OpenSecrets Blog

                  Then, ask yourself, 'Cui bono?'

                  S.716: A bill to modify the requirements under the STOCK Act regarding online access to certain financial... OpenCongress
                  Today we have the best gov't money can buy. I think that is actually a fact. As it has destroyed what this republic was, although we have never been barren of the influence of money. But surely this dependence of those who want to keep their office, or win an office has become exponentially worse.

                  Congress has even admitted, some of them, that this is a great problem. Yet they will not do anything to address it. The money has em by the nutsack. And their demand for personal power insures nothing will change.

                  A general house cleaning is in order, yet I have no delusions this could ever happen. They current system is just too powerful, too entrenched. I truly believe that if a house cleaning was allowed, the system in place would insure that any new people would have to be acceptable for the powers behind the curtain. Or they wouldn't have a chance, given what our media has become. He who controls the media has little to worry about. Back when there was a planned coup against FDR, one of the rich instigators was asked, "what about the media?" The reply was, not to worry about that, the media was owned. And this was before the media became such great propagandists.

                  ?


                  • #24
                    Re: Bankers shovelling money to Hillary amidst rumors of Warren candidacy

                    Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
                    Agreed.

                    The government provided the motivation for the market to take on toxic mortgages via the CRA (banks being criminally charged by the government for denying unqualified borrowers), and then also provided the motivation for Fannie and Freddie to buy up all those toxic mortgages.

                    So then by government oversight direction a demand for toxic mortgages was created, and a supply of toxic mortgages was created.
                    You were expecting the markets NOT to react to this stimuli, to these conditions as set by the government? Isn't that rather naive?
                    What legal code would have provided the basis to prosecute those banks who would not lend money to a person who would clearly not be able to pay back the loan, or was an unacceptable credit risk?

                    I can't find one, which is why I am asking. You seem to be well schooled in this. So, what law would the banks break for being responsible, for acting like banks have acted since post great depression?

                    I will need this in order to agree that banks made bad loans when they knew full well the loans would default. Of course, if you make a loan and then quickly discount it and sell it to another investment institution, who then bundles it, sells it again as an investment while taking out insurance, the folks that end up with the investment are the ones at risk, like some town in Europe. When the loans start to fail, only the guy with insurance against it wins anything. When did these exotic instruments arise, and used so widely? Before or after deregulation?

                    ?


                    • #25
                      Re: Bankers shovelling money to Hillary amidst rumors of Warren candidacy

                      Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                      Today we have the best gov't money can buy. I think that is actually a fact. As it has destroyed what this republic was, although we have never been barren of the influence of money. But surely this dependence of those who want to keep their office, or win an office has become exponentially worse.

                      Congress has even admitted, some of them, that this is a great problem. Yet they will not do anything to address it. The money has em by the nutsack. And their demand for personal power insures nothing will change.

                      A general house cleaning is in order, yet I have no delusions this could ever happen. They current system is just too powerful, too entrenched. I truly believe that if a house cleaning was allowed, the system in place would insure that any new people would have to be acceptable for the powers behind the curtain. Or they wouldn't have a chance, given what our media has become. He who controls the media has little to worry about. Back when there was a planned coup against FDR, one of the rich instigators was asked, "what about the media?" The reply was, not to worry about that, the media was owned. And this was before the media became such great propagandists.
                      True, the media is owned. Owned by an insular echo chamber of liberals / progressive / Democrats all centered in NYC (where the major media broadcasters are HQed). Do you really think that Obamacare could have gotten this far without their complicit support?

                      There is a change in progress in the Republican party to a return to more constitutionally limited smaller government. it has yet to be seen what this change will bring, but it is a change that will hopefully displace some of the Old Guard Republicans which portray the same behaviors you are objecting to.

                      Is there a similar change in the Democratic party? I don't see it. What I do see is a continued striving and driving to the left. Some would say extreme left.

                      Hey, Republican party is changing. What is the Democratic party doing? Getting worse.

                      ?


                      • #26
                        Re: Bankers shovelling money to Hillary amidst rumors of Warren candidacy

                        Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                        What legal code would have provided the basis to prosecute those banks who would not lend money to a person who would clearly not be able to pay back the loan, or was an unacceptable credit risk?

                        I can't find one, which is why I am asking. You seem to be well schooled in this. So, what law would the banks break for being responsible, for acting like banks have acted since post great depression?

                        I will need this in order to agree that banks made bad loans when they knew full well the loans would default. Of course, if you make a loan and then quickly discount it and sell it to another investment institution, who then bundles it, sells it again as an investment while taking out insurance, the folks that end up with the investment are the ones at risk, like some town in Europe. When the loans start to fail, only the guy with insurance against it wins anything. When did these exotic instruments arise, and used so widely? Before or after deregulation?
                        It was all a numbers game. If a certain lending institution did not have a certain percentage of loans in particular areas of a city, they could be sued for "redlining" those areas. Obama was one of the chief lawsuit filers for just that.

                        ?


                        • #27
                          Re: Bankers shovelling money to Hillary amidst rumors of Warren candidacy

                          Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                          Today we have the best gov't money can buy. I think that is actually a fact. As it has destroyed what this republic was, although we have never been barren of the influence of money. But surely this dependence of those who want to keep their office, or win an office has become exponentially worse.
                          I guess you could say that the government of, by, & for the people has been sold to the highest bidders.

                          "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. ...
                          It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before usthat from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotionthat we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vainthat this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedomand that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
                          All I can say, at this point in time, if perished, it's not RIP.

                          On the contrary. Some folks seem unwilling to let it go. Count me in.

                          ?


                          • #28
                            Re: Bankers shovelling money to Hillary amidst rumors of Warren candidacy

                            We can vote the suckers out. It's just that there are so few informed voters that it doesn't happen.

                            ?

                            Working...
                            X