Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

POLICE-STATE ON 21st STREET!

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

  • #31
    Re: POLICE-STATE ON 21st STREET!

    Originally posted by AEG View Post
    The irony here is that without the repeal of Glass-Steagall the failing investment banks would not have been able to have been purchased by commercial (non-investment) banks. These investment banks would simply have gone under.


    Were you aware that apparently under this law life insurance co's are now buying troubled small banks for pennies on the dollar to qualify for vast TARP handouts?

    When will the theft ever end... ?casino capitalists? have become beyond brazen, relentless, like Somali pirates hijacking yet another ship even while the navy is nearby.

    One of the only advocates watching all this on our behalf is Ralph Nader. Read his indictment of the big four accounting firms who let all this happen with full complicity:

    http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/2111-CPAs-MIA.html
    http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2009/04/11/cpas-mia-by-ralph-nader/


    Comment


    • #32
      Re: POLICE-STATE ON 21st STREET!

      Originally posted by JS View Post
      AIG,
      I guess we are back to name-calling. What would be a good representation for JS?

      While you did give a screed on your thoughts on finance, you missed the thrust of my message, which I will repost:

      "The irony here is that without the repeal of Glass-Steagall the failing investment banks would not have been able to have been purchased by commercial (non-investment) banks. These investment banks would simply have gone under. If you believe that the failing of banks has led to the current economic situation than having Glass-Steagall in place would have caused more banks to go under."


      You and I both believe in appropriate regulation for financial institutions. I am saying that your venting at Glass-Steagall is misplaced.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: POLICE-STATE ON 21st STREET!

        Originally posted by JS View Post

        Were you aware that apparently under this law life insurance co's are now buying troubled small banks for pennies on the dollar to qualify for vast TARP handouts?

        When will the theft ever end... ?casino capitalists? have become beyond brazen, relentless, like Somali pirates hijacking yet another ship even while the navy is nearby.

        One of the only advocates watching all this on our behalf is Ralph Nader. Read his indictment of the big four accounting firms who let all this happen with full complicity:

        http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/2111-CPAs-MIA.html
        http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2009/04/11/cpas-mia-by-ralph-nader/


        Among other things, this is a failure of business, government watchdogs, and government using the finance industry as social policy. If you are trying to lay this at Glass-Steagall's feet, that's a bit odd. If you would rather the small banks go out of business, well then I better understand your point. My point is that this is a complex failure and not well-suited for sound-bit analysis.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: POLICE-STATE ON 21st STREET!

          Originally posted by AEG View Post
          I am saying that your venting at Glass-Steagall is misplaced.
          (SIC, of course, it was the repeal that was the problem).

          If you are pro-regulation, what regulation would you prefer? Compiling regular banks with investment banks, insurance and brokerages are exactly what allowed the 'money in/junk out' casino banksterism that's the problem.

          Read my next post, and Nader's entire indictment.

          In the bellies of banksters, you don't let the mouth and the arse create corporate collusion, you put a bladder and liver, an immune system and a whole buncha guts in between.

          Glass Steagall apparently specifically allowed credit default obligations, the constipated back-end of these derivatives. This was only one of the flaws of its repeal, but I don't have to go back to the whole musty bill to know that it regulated, why it regulated, why the crooks repealed it, why it worked until it was repealed, and upon repeal (by rethuglicans) it allowed the criminals of finance to get away with the treasure, only to swim ashore while the ship burned.

          Your defense of allowing acquisitions of failed banks (that should have indeed been left to fail, all executive stock-holders been made broke) is absurd. You're telling me BOA paid a fair price for Merrill Lynch at taxpayer expense? Talk about an inside job...
          Shareholder I presume?

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: POLICE-STATE ON 21st STREET!

            http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/...ss-Steagall%22

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: POLICE-STATE ON 21st STREET!

              Originally posted by AEG View Post
              If you would rather the small banks go out of business, well then I better understand your point. My point is that this is a complex failure and not well-suited for sound-bit analysis.
              No doubt. But you know as well as I, after all analysis, vast graft and theft, epic theft transpired, and repealing Glass Steagall had a lot to do with how. Small banks were hardly the bulk of the problem, and hardly the major recipients of this ridiculous TARP. Their failure would have mattered little. Nationalization of the big banks would have been in order, if only temporarily.

              How about we boycott banks and only deal with credit unions. Banks no longer deserve our business.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: POLICE-STATE ON 21st STREET!

                Originally posted by JS View Post
                repealed, and upon repeal (by rethuglicans)
                Repealed with Bill Clinton signing off on it. Both Democrats and Republicans agreed to this.

                Originally posted by JS View Post
                Your defense of allowing acquisitions of failed banks (that should have indeed been left to fail, all executive stock-holders been made broke) is absurd. You're telling me BOA paid a fair price for Merrill Lynch at taxpayer expense? Talk about an inside job...
                Shareholder I presume?
                You presume wrong. I don't own shares in any banks.

                Had these banks failed, maybe it wouldn't have been such a bad thing. Taxpayers still would have suffered owing to the financial mess. It's a complex problem; I don't have any pat answers.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: POLICE-STATE ON 21st STREET!

                  Originally posted by JS View Post
                  How about we boycott banks and only deal with credit unions. Banks no longer deserve our business.
                  For me, that's cutting off my nose to spite my face; I still need the convenience banks offer. And what about all the banks that don't pose any threat to the taxpayer? Sweeping generalizations can be quite rough -- at some point they can crystalize into to prejudice.

                  That said, if you want to deal only with credit unions, more power to you. I have zero problem with consumer choice.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: POLICE-STATE ON 21st STREET!

                    These's a number of stories on this page with anyone one of them possibly being what you are referring to. What is the title(s) of the applicable stories?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: POLICE-STATE ON 21st STREET!

                      I'm only seeing intelligent conversation coming from one side here. JS pertaining to your comment about who is at fault for this financial crisis here's what you might find to be an enlightening video.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: POLICE-STATE ON 21st STREET!

                        Originally posted by tarmill View Post
                        I'm only seeing intelligent conversation coming from one side here. JS pertaining to your comment about who is at fault for this financial crisis here's what you might find to be an enlightening video.
                        Tarmill,

                        Yes and no. We (those with fiscal conservative leanings) gave up the good fight on this. Bush should have taken this to the public as a separate press conference. With Fannie and Freddie as GSEs, it's my own personal unsubstantiated opinion that they were considered "too big too fail" and people kept issuing mortgages for Fan and Fred to repurchase.

                        This (existence of Fan and Fred) is a classic example of using a financial system for social policy. And of course, of government overreaching. These two created the market for failure. But those on the left could concentrate only on how great it was to give those who couldn't afford housing their own houses. A paradox right -- get something to those who cannot afford it. Had the government bought mortgages and kept them, that would have been one thing. But these toxic things go back out into the market.

                        We gave up the good fight.

                        We should have been screaming in the aisles; now it looks like this is just a fault of the right. Remember history is written by the victors; and right now the victors are the Democrats -- House, Senate, and Presidency. Pushing these sorts of facts now is like Alice in Wonderland -- in one ear, out the other.

                        We were wrong because we didn't believe enough in our own findings.

                        We knew the truth and failed the American public for not taking this far enough.
                        Last edited by AEG; 04-13-2009, 11:15 PM. Reason: fix quote.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: POLICE-STATE ON 21st STREET!

                          Originally posted by tarmill View Post
                          I'm only seeing intelligent conversation coming from one side here.
                          Really? Is intelligent conversation insisting religious people are somehow "less flawed" then the militant non-religious? (Honestly, I'm not even sure what you mean by militant non-religious)

                          You didn't bother to address my question if they were less flawed than militant Islamic Fundamendalists who think it's ok to murder for their ideology. Are the religious Catholic priests who molested children less flawed then the non-religious law abiding?

                          With all the scandals throughout the years involving the clergy and well-known TV preachers you can't seriously be claiming that believing in a God or having "religion" somehow makes you morally superiour to an atheist or agnostic. If so, I find that outrageous and offensive.


                          Famous Atheists or Agnostics:

                          Thomas Jefferson
                          Abraham Lincoln
                          James Madison
                          John Adams
                          William Taft
                          Jawaharlal Nehru
                          Albert Einstein
                          Thomas Edison
                          Charles Darwin
                          Benjamin Franklin
                          Carl Sagan
                          Bertrand Russell
                          Galileo Galilei
                          Ayn Rand
                          Mark Twain
                          Marie Curie

                          There's quite a few who actually WERE in charge when our country was younger. Are we any the worse for it?

                          I do not understand why some "religious" people are so intolerant of those who choose not to believe in their "God". If that is what gets them through the day, fine. Why must they assign everyone else to Hell? Why do they feel they must "save" or "perfect" the non-believer? To me, that is an insult. Isn't America supposed to be about the freedom of choice?

                          Anyway, this is way off the original topic.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: POLICE-STATE ON 21st STREET!

                            Originally posted by minnie-me View Post


                            Famous Atheists or Agnostics:

                            Thomas Jefferson
                            Abraham Lincoln
                            James Madison
                            John Adams
                            William Taft
                            Jawaharlal Nehru
                            Albert Einstein
                            Thomas Edison
                            Charles Darwin
                            Benjamin Franklin
                            Carl Sagan
                            Bertrand Russell
                            Galileo Galilei
                            Ayn Rand
                            Mark Twain
                            Marie Curie
                            Minnie me,

                            I am just addressing the list; not your thoughts on whether those in religion can be dangerous (they can be, of course).

                            But the list is a bit odd. Two names struck me immediately -- Jefferson and Einstein. Neither were atheists in the slightest. Einstein clearly writes he believes in G-d though he rejects the notion of a Jewish G-d.

                            Jefferson attended church. He was also a Deist. He may not have subscribed to the Christian G-d, but as a Deist he clearly was not an atheist or agnostic.

                            There may be other errors in the list; these two struck as the most obvious. Again, it's not that I believe this is my opinion, but rather what documentation was left behind by the gentlemen.
                            Last edited by AEG; 04-13-2009, 11:49 PM. Reason: typo.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: POLICE-STATE ON 21st STREET!

                              Is it possibe that 'conservatives' apparrently see only their own side?

                              As a business man, I'm of course a defacto fiscal conservative (which necessarily means end the vast graft of the absurd waste of the military industrial complex that eats 55% of our tax dollars net of social security, even your republican and genuine conservative Rep. Paul would concur: http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm).

                              And I'm definitely no democrat, so attacking the genuine 'castrati' of the house dems won't work on me. I spent many wasted hours writing their Pelosi to Impeach your Botch for lying us into war and causing the deaths of 4k soldiers, who, upon revelation that there were no WMD's should have abandoned the battlefield at once, per international law.

                              Remember it was Reagan's appointee, the 'brilliant' Greenspan who begat this mess from its ideological source:

                              http://www.youtube.com/v/YwpnH_OTZio&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1

                              Ideological hypnosis aside, You know full well the GOPpers claimed the economy was 'strong' right up until days before the collapse, and detractors a buncha 'whiners'. No sense in trying to bury their crimes now, it was their whole economic trickle-up greed-based deregulationist philosophy that was allowed to run amuck.

                              How this all got conflated with these hard-core Christians is bizarre, some of you say 'well jesus was a carpenter, therefore unregulated banks are god'. I seem to remember the Jesus who kicked over the money-changers? tables.

                              You can believe in fair commerce without being a mafiocrat bankster, there are limits to the extremes of crazed casino capitalism which the 'culture wars' suckered 'conservatives' into buying, yet bought they apparrently were.

                              Something truly bizarre happened when 'fiscal' conservatives were converted by 'free market capitalists' into a syndicate of greed-based finance capital, and somehow all of this got mixed with the evangelical 'what's the matter with Kansas' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goAfLrr6v80&feature=player_embedded) cult of believers. None of these things fit into one ideology, unless of course you're a Gipper, and like him, kinda porous in tha brain (sorry but he was? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDK--...layer_embedded).

                              There was and remains one Dem who cares, who isn't corrupt, and who should be in the cabinet, alongside Ralph Nader, fighting for regulations in the interest of economic safety: Dennis Kucinich.

                              People should pay a lot more attention to what he has to say.

                              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAaUkmAKw4A&feature=player_embedded

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: POLICE-STATE ON 21st STREET!

                                AEG ok....those names were taken from a website of famous atheists or agnostics.

                                http://www.wonderfulatheistsofcfl.org/Quotes.htm

                                take it up with them. My point remains the same. I thought about not putting up the list because that's the kind of stuff that sets us off on another tangent.

                                Anyway, I really did not mean to send the conversation so far off the original topic....even though it already was. It's just this whole mindset about "my god vs. your god vs. no god" and the notion that one is superior over another just gets my goat. Either you're an ethical and moral person, living your life the best you can without harming others, or you're not. Having religion has nothing to do with it and it doesn't make you a better person. Sorry.....but it doesn't. And that list is too long to mention.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X