DC Tom Posted June 27, 2010 Share Posted June 27, 2010 Thats twice youve said that. He is not a corporate flunky. He has managed to demonize just about every profitable sector of the economy. Banks bad Oil companies bad health insurers bad drug makers (were bad until he struck a deal with them) hedge funds bad investment banks bad gm bondholders bad credit card companies bad chamber of commerce bad sorry, youre wrong on this one Not to mention that at least four of his seven points are simply incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted June 27, 2010 Share Posted June 27, 2010 Does this sound familar? "No one will know until this is actually in place how it works. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2500675_pf.html Oh..it reminds me of how the US constitution was ratified by the states, "no one will know until this is actually in place how it works...NOT . We should go back to a simpler form of governing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted June 27, 2010 Share Posted June 27, 2010 yeah he talks the talks he just doesn't walk the walk- he scolds, shows his indignation and out of that comes nothing at the end of the day- either he's bought or he is tremendously weak and has no balls- Tim Geithner, Larry Summers, Ben Bernanke, Rahm Emanuel, when I saw who he surrounded himself with I knew that meaningful change was a long shot - but I gave him a year before I started to be critical, probably waited too long - so sorry you are wrong on this one. Obama's a politician first and a socialist second. Right now he's trying to do just enough to appease you guys, without tanking the whole economy. These guys aren't dumb. They know that their control is detrimental to private sector growth, but power is what they're in it for. They're walking a tight rope here, and the good fortune of the American people, not to mention the "poor" and "middle-class" that they pimp out during election time, is just the bait, not the objective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 Oh..it reminds me of how the US constitution was ratified by the states, "no one will know until this is actually in place how it works...NOT . We should go back to a simpler form of governing Actually there was quite a bit of debate over the US Constituion and whether or not it would really work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 Obama's a politician first and a socialist second. Right now he's trying to do just enough to appease you guys, without tanking the whole economy. These guys aren't dumb. They know that their control is detrimental to private sector growth, but power is what they're in it for. They're walking a tight rope here, and the good fortune of the American people, not to mention the "poor" and "middle-class" that they pimp out during election time, is just the bait, not the objective. i am half with you here, but respectfully suggest you're missing the larger point. i think inevitably, the power brokers in this administration see the ultimate destruction of what most would consider 'the private sector' as the answer to the power they are seeking. let's be honest, in every political system, there are the haves and the have nots. the end game is simply to be on the correct side of the divide when the system breaks down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 Actually there was quite a bit of debate over the US Constituion and whether or not it would really work. And that was the second attempt at a federal government; the first - the Articles of Confederation - didn't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 Just curious, what would it take for you to stand behind a financial regulation bill? This country was almost brought to it's knees and collapsed by the greed of corporations. But still you don't want to regulate them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 And that was the second attempt at a federal government; the first - the Articles of Confederation - didn't work. And how many years after the war was over? Plus they had to do some backroom deals and promise to pass a Bill of Rights immediately after it was ratified. Imagine crap like that going on today! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 Just curious, what would it take for you to stand behind a financial regulation bill? This country was almost brought to it's knees and collapsed by the greed of corporations. But still you don't want to regulate them? For starters, it would be nice to know that they are at least competent enough to enforce existing regulations. Once they prove they can achieve this, then maybe I´d be able to support further regulation. Just sayin´ Oh and I see you didn´t happen to mention that actions from politicians in forcing the GSE´s to lower their credit standards for lower income earners wasn´t part of the problem. Why wasn´t Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac part of the Financial regulation bill? Isn´t that sort of odd, considering that this is the root cause of the financial debacle that we just went though. Barclays capital and Eagan Jones just came out with separate reports stating that they believe that US taxpayers may lose anywhere between $500 B to $1 Trillion over the next 10 years, and that between these two entities, which is 80% owned by the US government that they own 53% of the mortgages in the U.S and to make things worse, last year they were involved in over 75% of all the mortgages that were processed, which means that the governments role of in the housing market is increasing, and increasing rather dramatically. Funny that you we dont hear anyone from the other side of the aisle mention the outrage of Fannie not being included in the Financial regulation bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 For starters, it would be nice to know that they are at least competent enough to enforce existing regulations. Once they prove they can achieve this, then maybe I´d be able to support further regulation. Just sayin´ Oh and I see you didn´t happen to mention that actions from politicians in forcing the GSE´s to lower their credit standards for lower income earners wasn´t part of the problem. Why wasn´t Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac part of the Financial regulation bill? Isn´t that sort of odd, considering that this is the root cause of the financial debacle that we just went though. Barclays capital and Eagan Jones just came out with separate reports stating that they believe that US taxpayers may lose anywhere between $500 B to $1 Trillion over the next 10 years, and that between these two entities, which is 80% owned by the US government that they own 53% of the mortgages in the U.S and to make things worse, last year they were involved in over 75% of all the mortgages that were processed, which means that the governments role of in the housing market is increasing, and increasing rather dramatically. Funny that you we dont hear anyone from the other side of the aisle mention the outrage of Fannie not being included in the Financial regulation bill. Talking to Conner is like talking to an ougoing message on voice mail. Same thing over and over. Some of the saddest but funniest videos are on Youtube when the Barney Franks of this world rip into a Federal Regulator during a hearing when he suggests Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are in trouble. How dare he disparage their main campaign contributors. If I remember correctly this was just shortly before that whole house of cards fell apart. It's the damn corporations though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 For starters, it would be nice to know that they are at least competent enough to enforce existing regulations. Once they prove they can achieve this, then maybe I´d be able to support further regulation. Just sayin´ Oh and I see you didn´t happen to mention that actions from politicians in forcing the GSE´s to lower their credit standards for lower income earners wasn´t part of the problem. Why wasn´t Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac part of the Financial regulation bill? Isn´t that sort of odd, considering that this is the root cause of the financial debacle that we just went though. Barclays capital and Eagan Jones just came out with separate reports stating that they believe that US taxpayers may lose anywhere between $500 B to $1 Trillion over the next 10 years, and that between these two entities, which is 80% owned by the US government that they own 53% of the mortgages in the U.S and to make things worse, last year they were involved in over 75% of all the mortgages that were processed, which means that the governments role of in the housing market is increasing, and increasing rather dramatically. Funny that you we dont hear anyone from the other side of the aisle mention the outrage of Fannie not being included in the Financial regulation bill. The best defense is a good offense. We know that the stability of Fannie and Freedie was questioned during the Bush years only to be told that "they're fine". We also know that nearly all of the TARP money loaned to private banks has been repaid with interest and that Fannie and Freddy have needed additional cash infusions. We also know that Fannie and Freddie would buy nearly any mortgage offered to them (regardless of the credit quality) which enabled banks and brokers to write any deal they could find, sell that deal and go get more deals without the long-term downside credit risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 Does this sound familar? "No one will know until this is actually in place how it works. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2500675_pf.html Yes, sounds just like when the put the Constitution into operation and no one was sure how it would work. What a disaster that was, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fastback Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 Yes, sounds just like when the put the Constitution into operation and no one was sure how it would work. What a disaster that was, huh? Dude, seriously? The Constitution? Are you talking about the 2,000 page Constitution? Do you do stand-up in you spare time because that is funny...LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts