I have no idea what you are talking about. People who vote against their interests are always the problem, but that would require some knowledge of history, as opposed to carrying around a chronic chip on your shoulder.
1 Like
Yes, paint all âgreenâ supporters as stoners. Canât be economics⌠nope must be the drugs that make people not vote for the Dems.
Keep on wining with that.
All of these public speaker types, including Elizabeth Warren, have agents who book engagements. They charge for each gig. What is Warrenâs standard rate?
1 Like
Really? I didnât know that.
(rolls eyes)
The point is, the Bernie Bros brigade accuses anyone and everyone that doesnât agree with their approach to anything and everything of being a âneoliberalâ.
Itâs a great little label-mongeirng scam.
Even in this very thread a holier-than-thou wannabe points to the the guns in national parks amendment that was signed into law as part of the credit card consumer protection bill.
But letâs say President Obama vetoes that bill because of the guns in parks amendment.
Would âprogressivesâ prefer that political loser and not getting the credit card bill signed?
Thatâs the problem with many of my fellow progressives who posture for purity⌠actual governance and legislating is not black-and-white. There is a whole lot of gray, and trade-offs in most situations.
Iâll take practical progressivism over political purity any day.
3 Likes
ummmm âPhiladelphia Summerâ.
Ellison was a part of the committee that put together that platform.
Now if you want to make this about messengers, than okiedokieâŚ
Sanders seemingly couldnât be bothered to campaign down southâŚdiscuss.
2 Likes
We have more important things to deal with, Senator.
2 Likes
Like, hell yes Iâm taking it, thatâs a lot of money. Oh, and I could do a lot of good with it.
Iâm sure Elizabeth is getting hers from somewhere like they all do, this is just a matter of degrees, a ratio.
I totally agree, if it is truly practical progressivism and not smoke and mirrors for protecting the interests of investment bankers.
1 Like
Third party voters in Michigan, Pa., and Wisconsin gave Trump the White House. Stein is complicit.
2 Likes
Thanks for the response but youâre starting with a lot of assumptions. It was two decades after the S&L scandal and the banksters werenât looking over their shoulders. All was forgotten. They would have been very âconcernedâ if the 2008 crash happened within five years of the S&L crisis. The prosecution percentage in the S&L crisis was close to 100% - with jail time convictions. So to dismiss it as âdidnât convince the bankstersâ is to dismiss the success of the S&L crisis.
And lawyers âpassing on opinionsâ does not negate mens rea. Itâs simply a legal smoke screen. There was definitely intention or knowledge of wrongdoing. Many CDOâs were designed to fail. Magnetarâs CDOâs were the perfect example.
I donât know of any criminal referrals that led to prosecutions by Holder. In fact, Holder never reestablished the criminal referral process, which is from the banking regulatory agencies. Theyâre the ones who go after the bank CEOâs. Holder could have reestablished that criminal referral on the first day in office. And when he left the Obama administration he still hadnât done it. So I donât know where youâre coming up with these two prosecutions and what made them as the best chance for a successful prosecutions.
But most of that really doesnât matter. Control Fraud was used successfully with an almost 100% conviction rate in the S&L crisis yet you seem to dismiss it. Holder never considered using it. Why, b/c a few smart lawyers put up the âintentionâ smokescreen, the âgosh I had no knowledge of what was going on defense?â I donât think any 50 year old bankster who was âliving the dreamâ and had a family, was even remotely willing to take the chance of winding up in a federal penitentiary. Do you? Deals could have been made. But Holder couldnât be bothered. If there was any âintentionâ at all it was with the Obama administration, as was reported, to âlooking forward, not backâ.
But the real fraudulent activity was in the rating game and the rating agencies. And Goldman Sachs was their biggest customer. GS would buy up thousands of mortgages, bundle them into a single security, brings it to Moodyâs and have it rated AAA paper, in effect setting up their own credit standards. Without that rating their (GS) product was worthless in selling to big state pension funds, as they were forbidden to buy these products if they were not rated AAA. But GS could and did sell them to the single investors and foreign banks. And that investor would have no idea of the underlining mortgages or the truncating process used to bury the subprime mortgages within the products, and nor did they care b/c what they they were buying were rated AAA.
Moodyâs knew what was going on and so did GS. They also knew almost half of the bundled mortgages were NINA loans with no income or asset verification. But investors never knew these facts, all they saw was the AAA rating.
Investment houses like GS were so busy selling mortgages they set up SPVâs - a special-purpose vehicle, a ghost corp, financed by selling bonds in a dozen tiers,deliberately separating the risk and payments - protecting the real AAA mortgage paper when and if the sub-prime paper in the bundle started to default. It was like a sophisticated Ponzi scheme and what the movie Big Short was all about, shorting ARMâs due within a year that already had a high default rate.
The banks and investment houses involved in this fraud would have fallen over like bowling pins if efforts were taken by Holder, with Obamaâs blessing, to investigate and prosecute. But it wasnât to be. There were no real reasons not to. IMO, youâre giving me excuses, not reasons.
If you canât add any content chammy (other than insults), please STFU.
And relief to the homeowners
LOL! What relief?
The salient point however is that Dodd-Frank puts in place protections to prevent a cascading failure.
Right. Banks are 50% bigger than in 2010. No possible cascading failure you say? Sure, theyâll fill out the required DF will and slowly dis-invest. Right.
Still the same old ass-kisser I remember.
Never once said any bank could not fail. But it would not cause a systemic threat and Dodd-Frank as requires planning be in place for unwinding collapsing institutions as well as much higher capitalization requirements.
And size is irrelevant, it is assets vs. reserves.
But as always⌠SQUIRREL!
3 Likes
Amusingly enough I remember grumbling back when Warren first ran that she couldnât be a progressive because she only converted from republicanism far too late. Or something. So itâs entertaining now to watch her being held up as some sort of a model of the left.
2 Likes
I was troubled when I got an email from Elizabeth Warren today asking for my money. We donât like the same people. So I quit her and unsubscribed frim those. I canât believe she wants a working woman like me to give her money.
Story about Cantor Fitzgerald The Amazing And Heartbreaking Story Of The CEO Who Lived And Rebuilt His Firm After 9/11: Howard Lutnick
Haters, faking faux outrage!
You go back and do the math - How many copies of âDreams of my fatherâ and âAudacity of Hopeâ sold worldwide, to catapult Obamaâs net worth to $11 million?
Iâm about to vomit, witnessing all this sanctimonious belching from Sanders, Warren or any progressive, polishing their virtue dung.
2 Likes
And good for you, because you canât do math apparently.
The highest grossing Harry Potter book brought in about $35 million.
Bushâs book deal was $7 million.
Think about that as you clean up your mess.
Washington Monthly reports that Fox started the story because it figured âProgressivesâ would behave as they did. They also point out the racism of the objections. Read if you dare.
2 Likes