birdog1960

and who looks after the interests of everyman here? surely not the banks big or small. this is about what is best for them and their influence on legislation despite their recent meltdown. your industry is shameless but we already knew that. what we didn't know is who in gov't would take them on. see that incredulous look on dimon's face in the nyt pic? that needs to be wiped clean. i'm inclined to support anybody materially or even symbolically pledged to do it. i'd say the vice chair of the fed is an appealable authority. he questions the authority of the big banks to influence legislation in the shadow of a recent epic failure. it's a valid salient point.

so what about the dismay of the vice chairman of the fed in the NYT article? is that not pertinent opinion?

actually, i did reply, concisely with a quote from the reference link. but i agree with your mattress thinking. this is a game for insiders as larry summers so threateningly told warren. what chance does the average joe have? better to hold on to what you have than lose it to the game makers. so if it's about small banks why did this occur? http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/wall-st-wins-a-round-in-a-dodd-frank-fight/?_r=0

actually, this subject has common ground. your question of what to do about it is the discussion. i agree with warren. at a minimum, continue current regulations. i've yet to read any other ideas except tired, old insults

from the national review link: "Bailout politics is still very much with us: People resent — rightly — what was done and how it was done. Many on the Tea Party right and the Occupy left intuit that there exists a dysfunctional relationship between Wall Street and Washington, though Senator Warren et al. maddeningly believe that the way to ameliorate this is to invest Washington with even greater powers, enabling even worse misbehavior and even more remorseless rent-seeking." so both far right and far left find the principle behind the revision distasteful. warren voices her disapproval in the most appropriate forum and both sides criticize. if nothing else, this is a very interesting phenomenum. apparently because she supported a bill that allowed for gov't regulation of what the gov't was willing to guarantee, she was "investing washington with greater powers, enabling worse misbehavior…" i suppose this writer would then feel that fdic insurance for bank deposits should be removed altogether. if so, why not say that? that would be an extremely popular stance with the average american. in this way, i agree with jboys. what i've just stated is likely the libertarian solution to the question. the liberal stance would involve further gov't regulation, not less. but many on both sides see a problem here. it's a place to start from agreement.

why not read the piece? but since you're a lazy sob: A provision of the Dodd-Frank law required banks to create subsidiary companies to do their trading — with their own money. The idea was to create a firewall between the banks' trading and customers' deposits, which are federally insured. The spending bill that the Senate passed over the weekend eliminates the new rules, and keeps financial trading within the banks. turns out the wash post is telling the story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/12/14/elizabeth-warren-is-changing-washington-without-giving-up-her-outside-status/. interesting quote from larry summers to warren. never liked that guy.

perhaps a criticism of my point rather than this ad hominem would make you appear more intelligent. this is pandering to big banks. it was pushed through on the back of the budget. and none of the major for profit news sources (left or right) are widely reporting it. warren desrves credit for remaining principled. and bucking her own party.

um no. this was a provision in dodd frank that was rescinded by the new budget. sets a very bad precedent for throwing distasteful poison pills in budgets with the threat of shutting down the gov't.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2014/12/15/370817279/-warning-shot-sen-elizabeth-warren-on-fighting-the-banks-and-her-political-futur. when will we learn aour lesson on too big to fail? why should taxpayers cover bad derivative bets for huge banks. sadly, she was criticized by her own party for this. jamie dimon was personally calling members of congress to get this passsed. shows how tight the big banks are with many of our corrupt legislators.

networks flip flop positions more often than mitt romney in a porno flick. hbo has remained number one because they're the best. just like in real life they are most often more clever, more creative, funnier and more attractive than their boring conservative counterparts. want to be entertained? go to hbo. want to be sternly preached to? watch fox.

thought the same thing. shaun hill is way worse than orton however. he shouldn't be in this league. are there really not 30 or so humans that can play nfl qb on the entire planet? i just keep thinking they must be missing some guys out there. maybe jeff fisher is a better coach than marrone but i didn't see it in that game. that was a horrible offense. the game was boring. boring and losing are a very bad combination.

in spirit i'm betting on the one he feels promises the best roi.

now that's some plain speech. flagpole and all...

an aberration willfully ended with the firing of polian.

why? what explains his failure in producing a winning organization. for example, do you believe archie manning would have hoped either of his sons played on a wilson owned team?

you're pardoned. you're hardly the only person posting here with an aversion to speaking plainly on the subject.

you've watched this team for several years i presume. do you believe ralph wilson's highest priority with this team was winning as many games and super bowls as possible? if you believe that then you also must believe that he was a miserable failure. i'm betting you're smart enough not to believe either.

star wars and howard the duck are both competitors in the entertainment business as well. russ is just ducky.

i suppose it depends on the ultimate goal. if it's selling seats and merch with the lowest possible investment then he's your guy. if it's teaming up to manage a successful football operation then not so much.

now there's a breath of fresh air. anytime this poster supports current management keep this post in mind.

produce a winner and brandon ain't needed. the seats and merch will sell themselves.

don't recall mentioning substance abuse history re bush. likely however...

but what we need is a football genius. do we need brandon? does pegula need brandon?

there's bravado and there's stupidity and sometimes they're the same thing. time will tell where whaley's signature move is ranked.

i'm saying that there is no such thing as a sure thing. watkin's is no more a sure thing than peyton's dad who foundered his entire career for a loser organization despite his considerable talent. ( watch his espn biopic and he almost bleeds regret). p\based on his first season he appears a significantly better bet than leaf at the same point in his career. just like with qb's, with gm's there's the best and everyone else. i don't have that much confidence that whaley is in polian's class. whether watkin's will be a generational talent is yet to be seen. i have my doubts but remain unconvinced either way. i see contemporaries with seemingly similar talent unlike say, peyton. and sorry, no way i would quote buddy nix to make a point about the nuances of nfl management.