elizabeth warren is correct on this

[TH3]

This issue is what I find exemplary of today's politics - what is conservative and what is liberal? in many ways the language will allow banks to be more liberal in their actions which are guaranteed by you and me. Warren argues for a more conservative stance by defintion - but gets blasted by the right. We have the most liberal gun laws in the industrialized world defended by conservatives, we have the most liberal congregation, speech, press, religious freedoms - our nation is the center of the most - by definition - liberal structure in the world...yet conservatives claim liberals are ruining everything while they stake claim in reclassifying our country as conservative. We are the most liberal country in the world and have been doing nothing but becoming more liberal - by defintion -since our inception.

[Alaska Darin]

and who looks after the interests of everyman here?

Democrats, of course.

 

We have the most liberal gun laws in the industrialized world defended by conservatives, .

No we don't.

[birdog1960]

In other words you don't care about the regulation beyond the fact that financial institutes hate it, you don't have any interest in what it does and what it doesn't do, you aren't concerned as to what financial products are covered and which aren't even if these instruments may be used to limit the risk of assets insured by the FDIC, you have no interest in the design or efficacy of the original bill, you're just anti-finance and banking.

 

You're outraged but you have no idea whether its justified and you do not care to find the truth. I see I'm catching more flies with honey.

i care about the regulations. i care that the primary consideration isn't the interests of the citizenry. i don't believe that guaranteeing bets of any bank with tax money is in our best interest. care to explain how it is?

 

this wasn't even debated in the senate. they all wanted to get home for the holidays. and they all wanted to please their banking benefactors. they did and will probably continue to.

Edited December 16, 2014 by birdog1960

[GG]

In other words you don't care about the regulation beyond the fact that financial institutes hate it, you don't have any interest in what it does and what it doesn't do, you aren't concerned as to what financial products are covered and which aren't even if these instruments may be used to limit the risk of assets insured by the FDIC, you have no interest in the design or efficacy of the original bill, you're just anti-finance and banking.

 

You're outraged but you have no idea whether its justified and you do not care to find the truth. I see I'm catching more flies with honey.

 

In other words, he's Elizabeth Warren.

 

i care about the regulations. i care that the primary consideration isn't the interests of the citizenry. i don't believe that guaranteeing bets of any bank with tax money is in our best interest. care to explain how it is?

 

this wasn't even debated in the senate. they all wanted to get home for the holidays. and they all wanted to please their banking benefactors. they did and will probably continue to.

 

You're an idiot.

[Azalin]

My question is has anyone changed anyone's mind about anything ever in this forum.

 

Actually, yes. Several times. Usually in a topic with which I'm not as familiar as I'd like to be, like this thread. I have to google a lot, but I come away with a clearer understanding of whatever it is that people are talking about. If you're honest with yourself, you'll learn a lot.

[birdog1960]

In other words, he's Elizabeth Warren.

 

 

 

You're an idiot.

a tired old insult and a new attempted one. i'm thinking i don't mind the novel one so much.

[Chef Jim]

Actually, yes. Several times. Usually in a topic with which I'm not as familiar as I'd like to be, like this thread. I have to google a lot, but I come away with a clearer understanding of whatever it is that people are talking about. If you're honest with yourself, you'll learn a lot.

 

I'm not talking about learning something. I talking about changing someone's mind about something.

[boyst]

Jaurinim. My quote machine isn't working but that you for taking the time to reply. I have faith that you are right and people can change their minds on here because I one day you're going to realize I was the smartest dude on this board. Just give it time.

[GG]

a tired old insult and a new attempted one. i'm thinking i don't mind the novel one so much.

 

You haven't really graduated from the old one, and keep reinforcing it daily.

 

One of these days you may learn to be quiet about topics that you don't understand.

[Jauronimo]

i care about the regulations. i care that the primary consideration isn't the interests of the citizenry. i don't believe that guaranteeing bets of any bank with tax money is in our best interest. care to explain how it is?

 

this wasn't even debated in the senate. they all wanted to get home for the holidays. and they all wanted to please their banking benefactors. they did and will probably continue to.

I already explained which types of derivatives I don't think banks should have access to with FDIC protection so your question has already been addressed. Despite your persistence, derivatives are a useful tool in limiting risk (i.e., protecting consumer and bank interests). If you think a vanilla interest rate swap is a "bet" and don't care to read what I've linked or written, then by all means stick with "Wall Street BAD!" but don't pretend that you're actually interested in discussing the topic of your own thread.

 

In my case, I say deregulate the banks, let them destroy themselves in the first place. putting a firewall or protection to the consumer is only going to go so far because the consumer will now only be protected so far until the banks screw up again and they're bailed out again. of course, that may take 3 more decades, but it will happen and the short term protection the consumer has in the meantime limiting their exposure in assets is ultimately punished when taxpayer money goes to fix the wrongs that were there since the beginning.

 

if the banks would have been allowed to fail at least there would have been progress. this was like taking a dirty pair of britches that didn't get clean in the first cycle and throwing them back in again for another go around.

 

but, yep, i'm a simple country folk with all my money in the mattress and mason jars buried in the yard with my IRA invested in to limited edition dale earnhardt trading cards.

 

and of course i am too stupid to form an opinion on this but with any type of regulation there is going to be a heavy investment in undermining those and makes the institutions much more capable of corruption due to the lack of transparency. at some point those regulations will be outdated and new policies will be cast to adjust for what has already been an issue.

Jaurinim. My quote machine isn't working but that you for taking the time to reply. I have faith that you are right and people can change their minds on here because I one day you're going to realize I was the smartest dude on this board. Just give it time.

Remind me which banks were at risk of failing, which were bailed out, and how they were bailed out? i'd love to see how you arrived at such an opinion.

[meazza]

I already explained which types of derivatives I don't think banks should have access to with FDIC protection so your question has already been addressed. Despite your persistence, derivatives are a useful tool in limiting risk (i.e., protecting consumer and bank interests). If you think a vanilla interest rate swap is a "bet" and don't care to read what I've linked or written, then by all means stick with "Wall Street BAD!" but don't pretend that you're actually interested in discussing the topic of your own thread.

 

 

 

Remind me which banks were at risk of failing, which were bailed out, and how they were bailed out? i'd love to see how you arrived at such an opinion.

 

Didn't you know, we don't even know what they are!!!

 

[DC Tom]

a tired old insult and a new attempted one. i'm thinking i don't mind the novel one so much.

 

When people who know the subject stop trying to discuss it with you and start insulting you, does it ever even occur to you to that maybe you really are an idiot, and should shut up and listen for once?

[Alaska Darin]

When people who know the subject stop trying to discuss it with you and start insulting you, does it ever even occur to you to that maybe you really are an idiot, and should shut up and listen for once?

And stop sniffing his own farts? Please.

[Tiberius]

I know of two cases where I've changed someone's mind.

Of course you do.

[Jauronimo]

Didn't you know, we don't even know what they are!!!

 

"They made it so confusing on purpose so that they could get away with murder!"

[meazza]

"They made it so confusing on purpose so that they could get away with murder!"

 

I wonder if Michael Moore understands the equations behind the truck load of cheeseburgers he scarfs down.

[Azalin]

I'm not talking about learning something. I talking about changing someone's mind about something.

 

I should have followed through with my reply. One example of how I've changed my mind on an issue by reading posted debates here is on the topic of gay marriage. I've never understood anything other than heterosexual attraction, and that inability to relate was causing me to view homosexual relationships as being less genuine than straight ones. I can't remember exactly which thread it was - it was likely over the course of several different threads - but my view on the subject has changed as a direct result of reading and considering all the points that were being made. My stance on the issue of gay marriage is now one of support, not because I see no difference between gay and straight marriages, but because equal rights apply to everyone, and shouldn't be questioned simply on the basis my own personal biases.

[boyst]

Remind me which banks were at risk of failing, which were bailed out, and how they were bailed out? i'd love to see how you arrived at such an opinion.

BoA, WF, CitiGroup, JP Morgan, BB&T, SunTrust, BoNC, 5/3 and probably a bunch of others received money. Which ones were truly ready to bail out I can't be sure but I know that SunTrust is the weakest of those I listed. 5/3, BB&T and BoNC do very well with customers. But, all of those are here local or ones I am invested with, such as JP Morgan (I bought low @ 33), BoA, and WF. I don't know much about banking of investing but get a lot of help from my family. Anyway, I do not care what banks were ready to fail or what banks weren't. That has nothing to do with how I feel about what happened.

 

If those banks were allowed to fail then I would not care if the entire town of Bedford Falls came and gave them money or if they were bought up by Mr Potter. This country is supposed to be free market capitalism. The Gov bailing out companies is not their responsibility. Plain and simple, it's pretty much human nature. Strong survive, the weak get eaten. Knowing the rest of the situation is irrelevant. I do realize that a lot of the problems in the banking world are caused by overregulation and government regulation.

 

I'm not in banking and I don't know everything but I know enough to know an opinion. The same is true for you and agriculture. You know enough to know what you want as part of your diet and do not. My brother and sister in law + her side of family do banking. I use their knowledge for all of that.

[DC Tom]

BoA, WF, CitiGroup, JP Morgan, BB&T, SunTrust, BoNC, 5/3 and probably a bunch of others received money. Which ones were truly ready to bail out I can't be sure but I know that SunTrust is the weakest of those I listed. 5/3, BB&T and BoNC do very well with customers. But, all of those are here local or ones I am invested with, such as JP Morgan (I bought low @ 33), BoA, and WF. I don't know much about banking of investing but get a lot of help from my family. Anyway, I do not care what banks were ready to fail or what banks weren't. That has nothing to do with how I feel about what happened.

 

If those banks were allowed to fail then I would not care if the entire town of Bedford Falls came and gave them money or if they were bought up by Mr Potter. This country is supposed to be free market capitalism. The Gov bailing out companies is not their responsibility. Plain and simple, it's pretty much human nature. Strong survive, the weak get eaten. Knowing the rest of the situation is irrelevant. I do realize that a lot of the problems in the banking world are caused by overregulation and government regulation.

 

I'm not in banking and I don't know everything but I know enough to know an opinion. The same is true for you and agriculture. You know enough to know what you want as part of your diet and do not. My brother and sister in law + her side of family do banking. I use their knowledge for all of that.

 

It wasn't a bank bailout, it was a capital market bailout. Companies couldn't get short-term capital, because the banks had no cash to lend. The commercial paper markets were weeks (or maybe days) from seizing up, which would have been disastrous. To the point of "people not being able to cash paychecks."

 

And Citi was far weaker than SunTrust. I don't know how Citi survived, frankly.

[Jauronimo]

It wasn't a bank bailout, it was a capital market bailout. Companies couldn't get short-term capital, because the banks had no cash to lend. The commercial paper markets were weeks (or maybe days) from seizing up, which would have been disastrous. To the point of "people not being able to cash paychecks."

 

And Citi was far weaker than SunTrust. I don't know how Citi survived, frankly.

Bailout is just more fun to say than forced liquidity measures. The Treasury and investors who bought 8 year warrants (LEAPs) associated with TARP have made a nice little return on this "bailout". My BAC class As tripled up until late last week and this week kicked my portfolio in the balls repeatedly.

 

http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/