Politics
- Started
- Last post
- 33,755 Responses
- ukit0
- ukit0
GOLDMAN SACHS, the world’s biggest investment bank that is now assailed by accusations of fraud, is poised to reignite controversy over bankers’ bonuses by paying its staff more than £3.5 billion for just three months’ work.
- ********0
Obama skips Polish funeral, heads to golf course
Mr. Obama has played golf far more often than former President George W. Bush. In his eight years in office, Mr. Bush played just 24 times. His last time as president was Oct. 13, 2003- but how often did he go to the ranch?quack
- not like either of them actually much anyway********
- OMG! No wonder you hate him so much!fooler2
- Because he plays golf??? Funny how you post a little blurb and not a opinon and every gets defensive and angry. Just a small little funny blurb and it causes so much wackyness!********
- defensive and angry, that's the Democrat way, no?********
- ********0
Gates to Obama: White House lacks strategy for nuclear Iran
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/1…
Defense Secretary Gates warned in a secret memo to White House officials that the U.S. does not have an effective long-range policy for dealing with Iran's progress toward nuclear capability.- I'm confused...I thought you said that the NY Times was an unworthy news source.luckyorphan
- Of course, in this case, it's real reporting. But should it ever go against the right, it's bias...right?luckyorphan
- ********0
Obama resorts to more 'doom, crisis' language to push next agenda item
http://apnews.myway.com/article/…- He is taking a page right out the Right Wing Nut play book.utopian
- ********0
Obama, Clinton fundraiser admits $292 million fraud
http://www.reuters.com/article/i…
A wealthy businessman who raised money for leading Democratic Party politicians, including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, pleaded guilty on Thursday to defrauding three major banks out of $292.2 million in loan transactions.
- ukit0
I want to hear what you con's think of the financial reform bill. Strange silence on the conservative blogs for some reason.
- mathinc0
ukit,
Sorry for the late response from the last page.
Regulation imo is overdone. I get what you are saying, but I think the realism of what happened in the CDO/Credit Default Swap scams are EXACTLY why regulations don't work very well. These guys gamed the system in almost a completely legal way. Short of not notifying their investors that they were betting against the CDO's they created.. it was all legal. So what you're saying is that you think regulations keep you safe? Regulations are pretty much, by definition, a reactionary policy. A loophole is found and exploited, and then a policy is created to bandage that loophole. Sure, some policy is probably created before much damage is done.. but just looking at what Goldman Sachs was doing (along with hundreds of others) it's quite obvious that there was no gov body watching the market, so I'm quite certain their function is purely a reactionary one. Sound about right? What I'm saying, and I think you missed my point, is that relying on regulations is about as smart as driving your car by watching the road in the rearview mirror. A much better way to safeguard against loophole exploitation is to have creative agencies being as creative as the exploiters, or another name, Oversight. Where was the SEC while everyone on Wall Street was gaming the system? Probably out enforcing regulations... ? Who was watching for pitfalls in the exotic new investment tools, the Jenga blocks (as you said)? You know congress voted to keep the Credit Default Swaps from actually having to have real financial backing correct? They basically let these bankers make bets with money they didn't actually need to have on hand.. What do you want, a reactionary system (regulations) that just keeps building a portfolio of hoops and loopholes only acting after the fact or a system that looks forward and attempts to flow with these exotic financial tools interpreting and exploiting the fissures and cracks before they open up like fucking sinkholes?
- If what they did was destructive...but legal...then why not simply make it NOT legal. It's not really that complicated. No offense, but it sounds like you are grasping at straws to find a way to disagree with the Democrats.ukit
- complicated. No offense, but it sounds like you are grasping at straws to find a way to disagree with the Democrats.ukit
- math is spot on. and what to do with the fed when they recklessly manipulate the interest rates is a tough one too********
- especially when the manipulation has so much to do with politics rather then real good********
- Forget it. You guys have an infantile understanding of this stuff. Even John Cornyn was calling the other Republicans out on opposing this.ukit
- out on opposing these reforms, which are pretty common sense.ukit
- ukit.. I don't think you're getting what I'm saying at all. I'm comparing two systems of overseeing Wall Street practices..mathinc
- practices. I'm not on any political side and I think some of these bankers should be hung by their balls.mathinc
- But I disagree with you that Regulations will save us from future greedy fuckers exploiting the system. 'Making it NOT legal'mathinc
- is great, but it does nothing for the future NOT yet illegal situations.mathinc
- That's an inherent weakness sure, look at the internet as a prime example of the technology outpacing the lawukit
- But that's not a good argument against trying to make reforms TODAY that are obviously neededukit
- Never disagreed with you there ukit. Yes they are needed now that ALL THE FUCKING DAMAGE HAS BEEN DONE.mathinc
- But these regulations won't do anything for the next type of exploitation. Get what I'm saying now?mathinc
- Yeah but innovation doesn't happen THAT fast. It's not like it changes every week or even year.ukit
- Like the adage says, the GOP says that gov't doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it.luckyorphan
- The SEC fell apart under Bush 43. They became more than laissez-faire.luckyorphan
- ukit0
SEC officially votes to sue Goldman Sachs, despite Republican opposition
http://www.businessweek.com/news…
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission split 3-2 along party lines to approve an enforcement case against Goldman Sachs Group Inc., according to two people with knowledge of the vote.
SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro sided with Democrats Luis Aguilar and Elisse Walter to approve the case, said the people, who declined to be identified because the vote wasn’t public. Republican commissioners Kathleen Casey and Troy Paredes voted against suing, the person said.Schapiro, an independent appointed by Democratic President Barack Obama, cast the deciding vote in a high-profile case for the second time this year.
- ukit0
@tommyo
That still doesn't make much sense IMO. You are completely ignoring the fact that the REASON things got so out of control is because of laws passed by the Republican Congress back in the late 90s. Those are still the laws on the books today BTW.
The first was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (put in place by Phil Gramm, who has close ties to the Enron scandal). That law tore down the walls between banking, securities and insurance companies, essentially allowing them to merge and become "too big to fail."
The second was the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which deregulated credit default swaps and other derivatives by reducing the capital requirements needed for these kind of securities.
"The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (CFMA) is United States federal legislation that clarified most over-the-counter derivatives (“OTC derivatives”) transactions between “sophisticated parties” would not be regulated as “futures” under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) or as “securities” under the federal securities laws. Instead, the major dealers of those products (banks and securities firms) would continue to have their dealings in OTC derivatives supervised by their federal regulators under general “safety and soundness” standards. “Functional regulation” of derivatives products by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) was rejected"
Although hailed by the PWG on the day of congressional passage as “important legislation” to allow “the United States to maintain its competitive position in the over-the-counter derivative markets”, by 2001 the collapse of Enron brought public attention to the CFMA’s treatment of energy derivatives in the “Enron Loophole.” Following the Federal Reserve’s emergency loans to “rescue” American International Group (AIG) in September, 2008, the CFMA has received even more widespread criticism for its treatment of credit default swaps and other OTC derivatives."
That's exactly the reason CDSes became so widespread. So I don't really get what you are saying. We are gonna have regulation, one way or another, just like you are going to have laws governing every industry. It can be old regulation that is too weak like we currently have, or something that fixes the problem. But saying that because the Republican Congress (and yes, Bill Clinton and ironically Larry Summers) made a mistake before in being TOO willing to scrap existing protections, that we should just stick with that, seems pretty silly to me.
- Okay let me say this as plainly as I can..mathinc
- Regulations are well and good.mathinc
- But relying on regulations to save us from future pains from new molestations of the market, is idiotic.mathinc
- The system is flawed.mathinc
- and all I see from some of you is that the Bush deregulations caused this.. of course you're going to say this.mathinc
- OK, you're right, life is not perfect, I don't know what takeaway there is from that though.ukit
- The problem with this thinking is that the problem is that regulations don't close future loopholes.. the only way to do thatmathinc
- Actually they were mostly Clinton era...but passed by the Republican Congressukit
- that is to OVERSEE the practices of the market. Watch for people to exploit loopholes, analyze them, close them if they're too dangerous. Get it?mathinc
- ukit if you're going to be a combative cunt and not separate your love of the word 'regulation' with reality then there ismathinc
- nothing more I can offer. Just try and understand what I'm saying here.. Oversight vs. Regulation.mathinc
- ukit0
Basically your argument is something like: because Republicans passed shitty laws and didn't do oversight well, we should give up trying to do any more regulation, because it doesn't work. LOL!
- The GOP says that gov't doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it.luckyorphan
- ukit0
Obviously it worked at some point. Our financial system has worked pretty damn well for about the last 100 years or so, it's only after they made the changes described above that shit became fucked. Coincidence?
- mathinc0
Ukit,
haha really man that's what you get out of this? I'm not on any political side, nor do I even know what side anyone is on.
ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT REGULATION ISN'T AS WONDERFUL AS OVERSIGHT IN KEEPING FUCKERS FROM STEALING FROM ALL OF US AGAIN.
Get it? I can make the pt size bigger and just post it as an image if you still think I'm talking about anything political.. I'm talking about systems here.. systems. Not politics.
- ukit0
hahaha
Hey, I mean, I agree with you. Just saying that the laws or regulations that are passed do have an effect, sometimes dramatically. I mean look at how much derivative trading has skyrocketed since the 90s, to the point where it's higher than the entire economic output of the world. The shit got out of control.
- mathinc0
^ Right, and where were the regulations that are being presented now when it was obvious that funky shit was happening then? A system based on oversight would have proved very efficient in this circumstance. So thank you for finally coming around to agreeing with me ukit.
- ukit0
Well, not to belabor the point, but regulatory agencies from 2000-2009 were run by which party?
And yea the Clinton admin was just as bad because they failed to sound the alarm when those original deregulations were passed, but the Bush people were especially bad on this whole oversight thing.
- I'm sure you'll say I'm being partisan, but my point is just that when you have a anti-regulation, anti-government philosophy like a lot of these guys that goes too far, it can have pretty bad repercussionsukit
- philosophy that goes too far, it can have pretty bad repercussionsukit
- See, I'm not saying that we should have an anti-regulation system. My point is that regulation only stops practices wemathinc
- we already know are damaging.. they don't do anything to keep up with the changing economic 'inventions.'mathinc
- I think you need a bit of both. But where we can vastly improve our protections is oversight, not regulation.mathinc
- luckyorphan0
I think we're engaged in a semantic pretzel, here.
In order to have adequate oversight, you must implement and enforce established regulations. A gov't cannot practice oversight without being empowered by legal regulations. The regulations serve as the legislative structure that supports oversight. The two are intertwined, not diametrically opposed or even separate.
Please see the Merriam Webster Dictionary definitions:
oversight
1 a : watchful and responsible care b : regulatory supervision <congressional oversight>regulation
1 : the act of regulating : the state of being regulated
2 a : an authoritative rule dealing with details or procedure <safety regulations> b : a rule or order issued by an executive authority or regulatory agency of a government and having the force of lawWith oversight, one can regulate. With regulations, one can oversee.
Just clearing things up a bit.
- mathinc0
^^ Not necessarily.
By engaging in oversight, regulators would have seen that Magnetar was helping create extremely risky CDO's for the very purpose of their collapse. Betting against the CDO's they were helping create, they made billions. The CDO industry was slowing down on it's own until Magnetar came into the picture and actually allowed the CDO market to explode.. read here:
http://www.propublica.org/featur…
All of this was completely legal as far as regulations go. Definitely not moral, but legal nonetheless. At the beginning even market insiders had no clue why Magnetar was buying up the riskiest parts of the CDO's.. but soon they too figured out why they were doing it and they started doing it too.
So tell me, what's a better system. Rigid regulations that don't bend or flex when bankers exploit legal loopholes, only after the damage is done do they create policy. Or, a body that flexes with the bankers, acting on information they learn by studying the moves they make and attempt to curb unsavory behavior before damage is done?
You can't tell me that what Magnetar was doing, if evaluated at the time, wouldn't have raised giant red flags. Instead we rely on rigid regulations to keep creative and greedy entities from exploiting the system.
regulation = rigid set of rules
oversight = creatively examining
bankers = creatively exploitingWhich is a better system to keep bankers from getting us all in trouble? I think you need a little of both. But in this new world of exotic banking, you can not expect a rigid set of rules that take years to enact to keep the loopholes from being exploited.
- The luckyorphan obligatory self-comment™mathinc
- :Pmathinc
- Heh. Well done, sir! It's my branding, tho. That'll cost ya next time. ;)luckyorphan
- haha how much does that cost??mathinc
- luckyorphan0
Well argued.
Of course, there is nothing about regulations that forces them to be rigid. Regulations can be made to be flexible. True, rigid regulations can be self-defeating, but more open regulations can empower people to apply them with some latitude, and thus engage in more effective oversight.
I think it is simply about the details, in this (and many) cases.
- I'm not going to say anything here this time.luckyorphan
- D'oh!...dangit...luckyorphan
- ukit0
mathinc I think you have an overly optimistic view of what regulators (*whistles Warren G) can accomplish. It's not like they are fucking Superman able to swoop down from the sky, save grandma from being run over by a bus and then fly across town and foil Lex Luther's evil plot in one day. When you talk about these securities, a ton of them are being created every day by thousands of banks across the country. And your idea is to leave it to the discretion of the oversight people to handle cases one by one? Super cool story but, good luck with that bro.
No obviously you need to make permanent rules of some kind. This should be so obvious I dunno why we are still discussing it.
