All_Pro_Bills

I'm not clear why Putin would be gunning for Poland mainly because empires and imperialism are typically driven by the desire to acquire resources, not just territory for the sake of more land. As Russia is a resource rich country with a large land area already and Poland's main resource is coal reserves and production I don't see any strategic reason to go to the trouble. And while the former Soviet Union engaged in gobbling up nations of Eastern Europe after WW2 that ended with the dissolution of the Union. I'm aware of the theory being tossed about that Putin is obsessed with re-assembling the former Soviet Union but I think that's less fact and more fiction peddled by people using it to serve their own purposes rather than it being an accurate assessment of some policy objective. For one, none of these countries are economic powerhouses and anybody taking them on would need to sink lots of cash into them. Right now its the German's doing that though the EU and the Euro common currency. Why not just wait until Germany gets tired of subsidizing everyone else and things fall apart to make any move? Why start a fight?

Anybody watching Credit Suisse? As it looks like they're about to go under. Also, "Auditing giant KPMG is standing by its audits of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) and Signature Bank, which collapsed when customers rushed to withdraw their savings in panic-fueled bank runs. The two banks failed not long after their respective annual reports were certified by KPMG," More experts looking stupid or merely high paid experts at "rubber stamping" financial books.

Some suggest we should pretend its more like 1914 when various alliances and treaties among nations brought those parties into a conflict that would be called Word War I. Triggered by the assassination of an Archduke when soon after Austria-Hungary declaring war against Serbia followed by countries allied via treaty with no direct interests getting involved in one side or the other. Millions died as a result of the killing of one man most had never heard of before.

I believe the ultimate problem is the financial system in its current form is addicted to low to zero interest rates. All kinds of cheap loans for things like homes, business investment, cars, and other items. And when money is "free" lots of investments and projects that are economical at zero are not economical or justified at 5%. When rates go up, asset prices dependent on credit financing go down. This is a problem brought about by politics invading the world of economics and finance but it is by no means a liberal or conservative, left or right induced situation. Its been a series of decisions by Treasury department officials and Federal Reserve officials. Something most people fail to realize is the Fed is not a government agency. One check of their website provides a clue, its a .org. The Fed exists to serve the needs of its member banks. For that it has done well enriching the financial class at the expense of almost everyone else. The fact President Biden's Treasury head is Janet Yellen, a former Fed chairman is a clue to how this system functions. Its a deal with the Devil where the government gets a system rigged to provide it with lots of cheap financing in exchange for surrendering control of the value of the money it sponsors. Like an addict that has their fix taken away there are going to be withdrawal symptoms, failures, defaults, bankruptcies, and painful adjustments for higher rates. I think we're at the beginning of that process. My expectation was the Fed will keep raising rates until they break something. Well, something broke. I've been slowly accumulating investments in hard assets like gold, oil, other natural resources that have tangible value and dumping high multiple stocks and investments that I'd label as discretionary. Tech stuff mostly. I recite one of Warren Buffet's famous quotes for this time which is "when the tide goes out we get to see who's swimming naked". I think that's what we're going to find out soon enough in the markets.

And the campaign was fined by FERC for mis-representing the payment category for those disbursed funds on official campaign finance filings. But I believe the money trail went from the Clinton campaign to Perkin Coie to FusionGPS to Steele.

How many votes did this "help" change from Hillary to Trump? https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/inconvenient-facts/201908/did-russian-interference-change-votes-in-2016

Ya know, I'm still trying to understand this DEI stuff. I saw an African-American women discuss health care delivery issues from a DEI perspective last week. She said there needs to be more POC in the medical fields because they are in the best position to serve communities of color because they understand the culture and the specific needs of the patient. That might make sense from some socioeconomic and health perspective, but I can't distinguish between her statement and conclusion and what a 1950's white segregationist would argue about the merits of "separate but equal". What she was saying is people are better off sticking with their own kind. My conclusion is this DEI dogma is racism disguised by "good" intentions. Nice, polite, educated racists instead of the traditional mean, rude, clueless racists. Racism comes in many forms and colors. Personally, I've had white, black, Asian, Indian doctors in my lifetime and my only concern was how good a doctor is this person.

He's saying the people pushing others into war to die while personally profiting or benefiting from the conflict are mostly gutless cowards.

I think a general rule is men and women that have faced the reality of combat situations and warfare tend to be very discriminating and careful to commit to it again with their lives or the lives of others.

I'd simply argue the trajectory of the financial system, including government spending and consumer spending for that matter, is unsustainable and either you make conscious decisions to rein in spending and debt or you'll be forced by circumstances to do it later under less pleasant conditions.

How about slowing Federal government spending? They borrow a lot of money too.

I believe some of our "progressive" members here have already assigned blame to Trump on page one. Its only been 3 years. I should talk. I was going to suggest it was Alan Greenspan for setting the precedent, followed by every successor to the former chairman, the Fed would backstop the industry with bailouts and accommodation when necessary while insuring that all risks of loss will be socialized and profits would still be kept private. So take risks and be as reckless as you want because you will never be hurt.

Interestingly enough, and according to the latest stats Blackrock owns about 7 1/2% of the shares.

My current employer is hot and heavy for some ESG and DEI lovin' of their own. I've dedicated myself to avoiding it all, quite successfully. My co-worker that has spent time working and living in poor parts of Africa and Asia calls all this stuff "first world problems" for people with nothing to worry about such as not starving to death.

I wouldn't count Yellen and Powell out just yet. Various Fed and Treasury Department officials have succeeded in holding together the financial system with some glue and rubber bands for the last 15 years so I expect they can keep the financial system together a bit longer. My read of the markets this morning is an expectation something is seriously broken, but the Fed will stop raising rates or cut, and some huge amount of liquidity is going to be injected into the banking system and the markets. If all this happens the US dollar might be the loser here along with anyone that gets paid in dollars or has assets denominated in dollars.

I also agree with Gene that SIVB, which for some unknown reason, was buying the long end of the credit market but as the smoke clears I expect we'll find out they've also employed a lot of leverage. Puts and Calls, Futures, Derivatives, all on top of a fractional reserve banking system. Leverage can compound gains to many multiples but it also has the potential to multiply losses on the way down. My guess is that's what went on here. The fact they employed a clearly losing strategy of going long with lots of leverage in the face of rising rates when the Fed gave no clear signal or statement they were contemplating reversing course or standing pat is incredibly stupid.

Yeah. I'm scared and you're insane. The suggestion that Bannon or Giuliani or somebody else doctored Hunter's laptop smells of complete desperation. Rats cornered. I mean, come on. Who makes up this crap? Whoever these ass clowns are they need a psychological examination to evaluate their comprehension of reality. You need to be a few cans short of a 6 pack to even contemplate believing it.

Some sophisticated conspiracy to falsify content. Comical flailing and denial. You sound like those MAGA conspiracy nuts.

The other common mental gyration is confirmation bias.

Sorry. I don't see the equivalency argument between an environmental disaster and a bank failure.

Apparently, you're not only an expert on every political and social justice topic (along with proficiency on quoting every person on Earth that uses Twitter) but also an expert on everything else. Including banking. Maybe you're wasting your time scolding and educating us simpletons and should move on to bigger and better things? Or elaborate further on your knowledge of the banking sector. Such what further implications do you see from SIVB?

So what you suggest is bankers are just too greedy and stupid to run their businesses in a responsible manner and its necessary for scores of government agents to be looking over their shoulders constantly to make sure they do thing right?

Are you missing something obvious? That being playing the victim is the core principle of social justice dogma. All you gotta do to validate my point is read and listen to it all.

So how long should we wait for anyone in the media or government that was "wrong" about anything to admit their mistake, apologize, and issue a retraction?

I'll be honest, I'm getting frustrated with you because its not about Putin. But you keep going back there in some effort to marginalize my views by associating me with somebody I never met and have no regard for either. I merely asked for some clarity and discussion around the administration's position of doing "whatever it takes". And what that undefined and nebulous slogan might imply. I dared to questions the establishments actions and lack of providing any clarity to the public at-large around the objectives and you immediately jumped to their defense by suggesting I'm siding with the enemy for merely for questioning the government. How dare me! .