Post: #151

Quote:It's undeniable that Democratic Party is heavily under corporate influence, Goldman Sachs being one of its prime controllers. Of course, corporations are not bad by itself, but Goldman Sachs certainly is. I agree that's bad.

So how does it follow that Republicans, who cheered allowing corporations to spend unlimited money on elections (Citizens United) AND fought against Dodd-Franks as much as possible, would be better in this regard?

What about the Tea Party? It is not only funded by the same interests, it has even been created by them.

Name me one political candidate with some workable solutions to this problem. I've now heard of Gary Johnson who was allegedly sabotaged by big corporations acting on the free market, yet you seem to cheer any bill that would restrain them so clearly it's not him either.

What is the solution, other than just claiming that Democratic Party is to blame for everything? Seriously, give me some alternatives here.

Dodd-Frank, at the best was designed just to help protect Goldman Sachs, and at worst really did nothing but cause problems for everyone in the banking industry and did little to nothing to prevent another collapse. At least that is what I gathered in various interviews on it.

The Tea Party was created by libertarian groups back when Bush was in office spending money in an out of control fashion. It was high jacked by the Republican party. Still a better bet for men than the Democratic feminist party.

The solution? I don't think there is one. IMO once you give women the right to vote it is only a matter of time before they vote for who ever will give them security and it bankrupts a country. Sad to say, I don't think there is any way out of this mess and I think those in charge are well aware and making plans for the collapse.

Post: #152

(10-31-2013 07:55 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Quote:Dodd-Frank should have been gutted. It should have been eliminated entirely. It is a drain on the economy. Not having anything -- and simply relying upon the free market -- is better than having Dodd-Frank.

On the other hand, Glass-Steagall was a worthy piece of legislation...

But Glass-Steagall was enacted precisely so that things would not be left just to the free market!

If your aim is to regulate the market, how does it follow that a bill that does exactly that should be gutted so that the market remains as unregulated as possible?

This is circular logic.

It appears to be circular logic only if you fail to take the time to research the issue. It is circular reasoning only to the degree that you have expressed a desire to eat a breakfast cereal, but do not want to eat Fruit Loops.

Glass-Steagall, at 37 pages in length, did a few simple things, including limiting commercial bank securities activities and affiliations between commercial banks and securities firms. Banks too big to fail? Problem solved.

Instead of simply re-enacting a 37-page act that had worked for over 70 years, the Democratic-controlled House, Senate, and Obama White House enacted the 2,319-page monstrosity, the “Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.”

If a 37-page bill took care of the problem in 1933, why can’t the same 37-page bill be re-instated? Why, indeed. The reason is that Glass-Steagall impedes the flow of public funds to favored special interest cartels and opportunities for financial looting by these same cartels.

So a monster is created that nobody understands and which limits or simply overwhelms oversight by elected officials, but only benefits those multinational corporations with a compliance department large enough to game the law. So, I will say it a third time:

Query: Do you think that there might be a reason why Goldman-Sachs was Obama's largest donor in 2008 -- a man who never held a real job in his life?

These multi-thousand page monstrosities make it appear that Washington is actually doing something while they actually place huge regulatory drags upon the economy just to serve their special interest masters.

Why simply fix a problem when you can exert more control over the economy by over-regulating and thereby serve your donors -- instead of The People? Dodd-Frank did for the banking sector what ObamaCare is doing for the health care sector. Exerting more control over a sector of the economy while not fixing the underlying problems.

Post: #153

(10-31-2013 07:55 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  It's undeniable that Democratic Party is heavily under corporate influence, Goldman Sachs being one of its prime controllers. Of course, corporations are not bad by itself, but Goldman Sachs certainly is. I agree that's bad.

So how does it follow that Republicans, who cheered allowing corporations to spend unlimited money on elections (Citizens United) AND fought against Dodd-Franks as much as possible, would be better in this regard?

There is nothing bad about corporations and traditional capitalism.

The problem is with the large multinational corporations and "crony capitalism," which is not really capitalism.

As of the 2000 Census, there were about 17,000 firms employing 500 or more employees. So, when I say "large multinational corporations," I am talking about less than 100 bad eggs, entities so large that they unfairly collude with federal government power brokers.

I mean really large and powerful -- as in Bear Stearns was allowed to collapse, but not Goldman Sachs.

You may recall that this was one of the major political themes of Pat Buchanan, the conservative Republican candidate for President: the undue influence of large multinational corporations in the U.S.

Post: #154

(10-31-2013 07:55 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  What about the Tea Party? It is not only funded by the same interests, it has even been created by them.

Name me one political candidate with some workable solutions to this problem. I've now heard of Gary Johnson who was allegedly sabotaged by big corporations acting on the free market, yet you seem to cheer any bill that would restrain them so clearly it's not him either.

What is the solution, other than just claiming that Democratic Party is to blame for everything? Seriously, give me some alternatives here.

The Tea Party was created by special interests? Provide proof. Do not be only of those people.

I support any candidate who believes in supporting the U.S. constitution as originally written. Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Pat Buchanan, etc. The old power structure of the Republican Party (about half) is just as corrupt and useless as the Democrats. The other half fall into the Constitutionalist camp.

IMO, there is no solution. When a plurality of voters are non-taxpayers and/or moochers you can no longer support a Constitutional Republic, which relies upon a hard-working selfless well-educated populace. Unless something dramatic happens rather soon, the nation is now in permanent welfare state decline.

Post: #155

I don't have time to write up a longer answer because I'm going on a trip (wish me good game) for a few days. Will get back to this interesting discussion.

While I'm travelling I will be trying to wrap my head around this strange fact:

Bill Clinton is simultaneously not responsible for the booming economy and budget sufficit because the 106th Congress was controlled by Republicans, yet he somehow is responsible for the repeal of Glass-Steagall act.

Post: #156

(10-31-2013 01:13 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  I don't have time to write up a longer answer because I'm going on a trip (wish me good game) for a few days. Will get back to this interesting discussion.

While I'm travelling I will be trying to wrap my head around this strange fact:

Bill Clinton is simultaneously not responsible for the booming economy and budget sufficit because the 106th Congress was controlled by Republicans, yet he somehow is responsible for the repeal of Glass-Steagall act.

In my post I said the Republicans are to blame for the repeal of Glass Steagall.

Bill Clinton was certainly not responsible for the booming economy. He had nothing to do with it at all.

The fact we only had one year of budget surplus during such an economic boom is embarrassing.

Post: #157

(10-31-2013 01:13 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  I don't have time to write up a longer answer because I'm going on a trip (wish me good game) for a few days. Will get back to this interesting discussion.

While I'm travelling I will be trying to wrap my head around this strange fact:

Bill Clinton is simultaneously not responsible for the booming economy and budget sufficit because the 106th Congress was controlled by Republicans, yet he somehow is responsible for the repeal of Glass-Steagall act.

This is not a purely Democratic / Republican thing.

Bill Clinton had nothing to do with the booming economy. Neither did the Republican Congress of that period. The economy was a continuation of the Reagan policies of the 80s, which finally reversed the catastrophic results of stagflation stemming from Nixon eliminating the gold standard for the dollar and Carter's subsequent failed economic policies.

Clinton and establishment Republicans in Congress were all responsible for Glass-Steagall. But Clinton could have vetoed the act.

Post: #158

This thread is getting derailed.

People, please tell me more about the phaggot Commander In Chief!

Post: #159

(10-31-2013 06:13 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  This thread is getting derailed.

People, please tell me more about the phaggot Commander In Chief!

He is a staunch feminist and the country is collapsing.

Post: #160

(10-31-2013 06:13 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  This thread is getting derailed.

People, please tell me more about the phaggot Commander In Chief!

I dislike Obama, but I am not into name calling. Plus comparing Obama to a faggot is unfair to faggots everywhere!

Post: #161

I thought the thread title was funny...to each his own I guess. Maybe people just need to lighten up a bit?