Campaign donations.

[dblack]

I find it disquieting. It makes me think of a voting system in which one citizen equald to one vote is not the norm , but rather one dollar equals one vote.

Now, that's getting right to the heart of the problem. We want political power to adhere, as much as possible, to the one-person/one-vote idea, and for good reason. Economic power, on the other hand, is distributed along the one-dollar/one-vote ideal.

This is why it's crucial that economic power and political power don't overlap. It's that very trend, toward giving government more and more power over our economic decisions, that's causing the problem.

 

[CultureCitizen]

But you just made my argument. That... what you just said.... is my argument.

Indeed, but with a tweak : If you compare the Norway and Colombia, the laws of Colombia are a lot more strict, but both contries have regulations restricting the caliber of weapons and require obtaining a license.
Yet the number of shootings is a lot highier in Colombia by several orders of magnitude.
What you see in Colombia is a very big inequality, many people living in poverty and many rich ( some of them rich through ilicit activities , which require guns).
The picture in Norway is quite different. Very little poverty , social security , easy access to education , tolerance.
The social tissue is in a very different state. The regulations make little difference.
I would see no problem in changing the laws in Norway, the effect would be barely noticeable.
I fear the broken window theory would come into play . This would not happen in Norway, because the social tissue is strong and there are barely any window breakers.

Broken windows theory - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[CultureCitizen]

Really.... you want to compare over eating with alcoholism and drug abuse?

That's your argument? Fail?

From an economic standpoint yes. They are both VERY expensive , allthough overeating is more socially accepted than being stoned or drunk.

Drug abuse costs the United States economy hundreds of billions of dollars in increased health care costs crime and lost productivity. National Institute on Drug Abuse NIDA
Alcohol 185 billion

What The Obesity Epidemic Costs Us Infographic - Forbes
Obesity 160 billion , plus hidden costs.

The figures are similar , so I sustain my viewpoint.

 

[Andylusion]

Really.... you want to compare over eating with alcoholism and drug abuse?

That's your argument? Fail?

From an economic standpoint yes. They are both VERY expensive , allthough overeating is more socially accepted than being stoned or drunk.

Drug abuse costs the United States economy hundreds of billions of dollars in increased health care costs crime and lost productivity. National Institute on Drug Abuse NIDA
Alcohol 185 billion

What The Obesity Epidemic Costs Us Infographic - Forbes
Obesity 160 billion , plus hidden costs.

The figures are similar , so I sustain my viewpoint.

Which still doesn't change anything I've said. Further, drug abuse causes other crimes, whereas obesity does not. Besides, this is all a red herring, which does not address the points I made.

 

[Andylusion]

But you just made my argument. That... what you just said.... is my argument.

Indeed, but with a tweak : If you compare the Norway and Colombia, the laws of Colombia are a lot more strict, but both contries have regulations restricting the caliber of weapons and require obtaining a license.
Yet the number of shootings is a lot highier in Colombia by several orders of magnitude.
What you see in Colombia is a very big inequality, many people living in poverty and many rich ( some of them rich through ilicit activities , which require guns).
The picture in Norway is quite different. Very little poverty , social security , easy access to education , tolerance.
The social tissue is in a very different state. The regulations make little difference.
I would see no problem in changing the laws in Norway, the effect would be barely noticeable.
I fear the broken window theory would come into play . This would not happen in Norway, because the social tissue is strong and there are barely any window breakers.

Broken windows theory - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And again... that is my point.

I find it strange that you clearly grasp that changing the laws in Norway wouldn't make them Columbia, and changing the laws in Columbia wouldn't make them Norway... yet you think changing the laws on campaign donations would somehow change the culture here.

 

[CultureCitizen]

I find it strange that you clearly grasp that changing the laws in Norway wouldn't make them Columbia, and changing the laws in Columbia wouldn't make them Norway... yet you think changing the laws on campaign donations would somehow change the culture here.

Maybe I did not my explain my self in full , I'll try again.
A) When you have a strong social tissue, you can relax the laws.
B) When you have a society that's crumbling and destroying itself you must enact laws to avoid further social descomposition.

I think at this point of time the US is transitioning from A to B. IMHO the ever more relaxed rules for Banks, the bailout , the decrease of the average family income, the offshoring of jobs, and the bankrupcy of the pension system point in this direction.

But then you might see other signs (maybe you see obamacare as a sign of this). I hope this explains my point of view and why I want stricter rules enacted.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Which still doesn't change anything I've said. Further, drug abuse causes other crimes, whereas obesity does not. Besides, this is all a red herring, which does not address the points I made.

It was actually to sustain my point : eating , drinking and using dugs are health problems, and mostly victimless crimes. Indeed, if you use drugs or alcohol while driving a vehicle things change very quickly, but the same can be said about people who overeat, they increas the social costs, and after a certain point it can destroy a family.

Clientelism falls in another category altogether. Clientelism leads to corruption. There's enough of that already.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I find it strange that you clearly grasp that changing the laws in Norway wouldn't make them Columbia, and changing the laws in Columbia wouldn't make them Norway... yet you think changing the laws on campaign donations would somehow change the culture here.

Maybe I did not my explain my self in full , I'll try again.
A) When you have a strong social tissue, you can relax the laws.
B) When you have a society that's crumbling and destroying itself you must enact laws to avoid further social descomposition.

I think at this point of time the US is transitioning from A to B. IMHO the ever more relaxed rules for Banks, the bailout , the decrease of the average family income, the offshoring of jobs, and the bankrupcy of the pension system point in this direction.

But then you might see other signs (maybe you see obamacare as a sign of this). I hope this explains my point of view and why I want stricter rules enacted.

IMHO the ever more relaxed rules for Banks

That's funny!

 

[CultureCitizen]

I find it strange that you clearly grasp that changing the laws in Norway wouldn't make them Columbia, and changing the laws in Columbia wouldn't make them Norway... yet you think changing the laws on campaign donations would somehow change the culture here.

Maybe I did not my explain my self in full , I'll try again.
A) When you have a strong social tissue, you can relax the laws.
B) When you have a society that's crumbling and destroying itself you must enact laws to avoid further social descomposition.

I think at this point of time the US is transitioning from A to B. IMHO the ever more relaxed rules for Banks, the bailout , the decrease of the average family income, the offshoring of jobs, and the bankrupcy of the pension system point in this direction.

But then you might see other signs (maybe you see obamacare as a sign of this). I hope this explains my point of view and why I want stricter rules enacted.

IMHO the ever more relaxed rules for Banks

That's funny!

Indeed!!!
Furor over aiding Banks in Funding Bill

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/b...ve-to-aid-big-banks-in-funding-bill.html?_r=1

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I find it strange that you clearly grasp that changing the laws in Norway wouldn't make them Columbia, and changing the laws in Columbia wouldn't make them Norway... yet you think changing the laws on campaign donations would somehow change the culture here.

Maybe I did not my explain my self in full , I'll try again.
A) When you have a strong social tissue, you can relax the laws.
B) When you have a society that's crumbling and destroying itself you must enact laws to avoid further social descomposition.

I think at this point of time the US is transitioning from A to B. IMHO the ever more relaxed rules for Banks, the bailout , the decrease of the average family income, the offshoring of jobs, and the bankrupcy of the pension system point in this direction.

But then you might see other signs (maybe you see obamacare as a sign of this). I hope this explains my point of view and why I want stricter rules enacted.

IMHO the ever more relaxed rules for Banks

That's funny!

Indeed!!!
Furor over aiding Banks in Funding Bill

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/b...ve-to-aid-big-banks-in-funding-bill.html?_r=1

Only a liberal, or an idiot, but then I repeat myself, would claim that the result of Sarbanes-Oxley
and Dodd-Frank has been "ever more relaxed rules for banks".

Like I said, funny!

 

[danielpalos]

One Body politic is delegated the social Power to Tax, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; regardless of all of the other ones. Fixing Standards for the Union can help achieve a more perfect Union of States.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Only a liberal, or an idiot, but then I repeat myself, would claim that the result of Sarbanes-Oxley
and Dodd-Frank has been "ever more relaxed rules for banks".

Oh man, did you get anything of the article at all ?
The house of representatives passed a bill thwarting the push.out rule.

"If this measure becomes law, these banks will be able to use FDIC-insured money to bet on nearly anything they want. And if there's another economic downturn, they can count on a taxpayer bailout of their derivatives trading business."

Citigroup Wrote the Wall Street Giveaway The House Just Approved Mother Jones

8216 Enough is enough 8217 Elizabeth Warren launches fiery attack after Congress weakens Wall Street regs - The Washington Post

If that isn't enough to convince you of the rampant cleptocratic influence the banks are exerting in the government, you can read this article by David Stockman "director of office and management" under Reagan, not by far a left winged person.

Memo To Citigroup CEO Michael Corbat Does Your Crony Capitalist Plunder Know No Shame David Stockman s Contra Corner

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Only a liberal, or an idiot, but then I repeat myself, would claim that the result of Sarbanes-Oxley
and Dodd-Frank has been "ever more relaxed rules for banks".

Oh man, did you get anything of the article at all ?
The house of representatives passed a bill thwarting the push.out rule.

"If this measure becomes law, these banks will be able to use FDIC-insured money to bet on nearly anything they want. And if there's another economic downturn, they can count on a taxpayer bailout of their derivatives trading business."

Citigroup Wrote the Wall Street Giveaway The House Just Approved Mother Jones

8216 Enough is enough 8217 Elizabeth Warren launches fiery attack after Congress weakens Wall Street regs - The Washington Post

If that isn't enough to convince you of the rampant cleptocratic influence the banks are exerting in the government, you can read this article by David Stockman "director of office and management" under Reagan, not by far a left winged person.

Memo To Citigroup CEO Michael Corbat Does Your Crony Capitalist Plunder Know No Shame David Stockman s Contra Corner

Did you forget what you said?

"ever more relaxed rules for banks".

Let's say they repealed much more than the "push out" rule.
Let's say they chopped half of it, banks are still more restricted than 6 years ago. 10 years ago.
And that doesn't even take into account the new Basel requirements.

Ever more relaxed? You're talkin' out yer ass. Again.

you can read this article by David Stockman

He's been a whiny little bitch ever since Reagan canned his ass.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Let's say they repealed much more than the "push out" rule.
Let's say they chopped half of it, banks are still more restricted than 6 years ago. 10 years ago.
And that doesn't even take into account the new Basel requirements.

Ever more relaxed? You're talkin' out yer ass. Again.

So , you seem to be comfortably at ease with the fact that banks can once again " roll the dice in the derivatives gambling with taxpayer guaranteed deposits."

That is outright imbecility. It has nothing to do with downsizing government or making a conservative use of the budget.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let's say they repealed much more than the "push out" rule.
Let's say they chopped half of it, banks are still more restricted than 6 years ago. 10 years ago.
And that doesn't even take into account the new Basel requirements.

Ever more relaxed? You're talkin' out yer ass. Again.

So , you seem to be comfortably at ease with the fact that banks can once again " roll the dice in the derivatives gambling with taxpayer guaranteed deposits."

That is outright imbecility. It has nothing to do with downsizing government or making a conservative use of the budget.

Do you have the list of banks that failed because of derivatives since 2007?
I know a bunch that failed because they held mortgages.
Maybe we should stop allowing mortgage lending with "taxpayer guaranteed deposits"?
If you'd like to eliminate the FDIC, I'll go along.
How much have the taxpayers lost on this FDIC guarantee?

 

[CultureCitizen]

Do you have the list of banks that failed because of derivatives since 2007?
I know a bunch that failed because they held mortgages.
Maybe we should stop allowing mortgage lending with "taxpayer guaranteed deposits"?
If you'd like to eliminate the FDIC, I'll go along.
How much have the taxpayers lost on this FDIC guarantee?

I don't have a list, but Goldman Sachs would be part of it.
"Goldman wrongly permitted a client that was betting against the mortgage market to heavily influence which mortgage securities to include in an investment portfolio, while telling other investors that the securities were selected by an independent, objective third party."

So , they made a pack of subprime ( knowing it would default ) , disclosed that information to a customer , and let him bet against it, and told other investors none of it. WTF?

SEC Charges Goldman Sachs With Fraud in Structuring and Marketing of CDO Tied to Subprime Mortgages 2010-59 April 16 2010

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you have the list of banks that failed because of derivatives since 2007?
I know a bunch that failed because they held mortgages.
Maybe we should stop allowing mortgage lending with "taxpayer guaranteed deposits"?
If you'd like to eliminate the FDIC, I'll go along.
How much have the taxpayers lost on this FDIC guarantee?

I don't have a list, but Goldman Sachs would be part of it.
"Goldman wrongly permitted a client that was betting against the mortgage market to heavily influence which mortgage securities to include in an investment portfolio, while telling other investors that the securities were selected by an independent, objective third party."

So , they made a pack of subprime ( knowing it would default ) , disclosed that information to a customer , and let him bet against it, and told other investors none of it. WTF?

SEC Charges Goldman Sachs With Fraud in Structuring and Marketing of CDO Tied to Subprime Mortgages 2010-59 April 16 2010

I don't have a list, but Goldman Sachs would be part of it.

Well, Goldman Sachs wasn't a bank before the crisis and they weren't going to fail because of derivatives. So you're 0 for 2.

So , they made a pack of subprime ( knowing it would default ) , disclosed that information to a customer , and let him bet against it, and told other investors none of it. WTF?

Made a pack of subprime? What does that mean? How could they know it would default?
If they did know, why give the winner to a client, they could have kept it all themselves.
Yes, they created synthetic derivatives. You know there are 2 sides to a derivative, right?

 

[Andylusion]

I find it strange that you clearly grasp that changing the laws in Norway wouldn't make them Columbia, and changing the laws in Columbia wouldn't make them Norway... yet you think changing the laws on campaign donations would somehow change the culture here.

Maybe I did not my explain my self in full , I'll try again.
A) When you have a strong social tissue, you can relax the laws.
B) When you have a society that's crumbling and destroying itself you must enact laws to avoid further social descomposition.

I think at this point of time the US is transitioning from A to B. IMHO the ever more relaxed rules for Banks, the bailout , the decrease of the average family income, the offshoring of jobs, and the bankrupcy of the pension system point in this direction.

But then you might see other signs (maybe you see obamacare as a sign of this). I hope this explains my point of view and why I want stricter rules enacted.

IMHO the ever more relaxed rules for Banks

That's funny!

Specifically, what relaxed rules are you referring too?

 

[CultureCitizen]

I don't have a list, but Goldman Sachs would be part of it.

Well, Goldman Sachs wasn't a bank before the crisis and they weren't going to fail because of derivatives. So you're 0 for 2.

So , they made a pack of subprime ( knowing it would default ) , disclosed that information to a customer , and let him bet against it, and told other investors none of it. WTF?

Made a pack of subprime? What does that mean? How could they know it would default?
If they did know, why give the winner to a client, they could have kept it all themselves.
Yes, they created synthetic derivatives. You know there are 2 sides to a derivative, right?

Of course , they turned into a bank exactly at the begining of the crisis. Quite conveninent wasn't it ?

How could they know ? Don't be naive, because they knew what was inside them of course.
Oh, and they also made profits from it :

"The e-mails, Levin said, "show that, in fact, Goldman made a lot of money by betting against the mortgage market" and contradict the firm's claim that it was merely buying and selling securities for clients."

"A third exhibit released by the panel describes the impact of a wipeout of a Long Beach Mortgage Securities Corp. security by saying the "bad news" of the loss costs the firm $2.5 million, but the "good news" is that "we own protection" against the loss. "We make $5mm," meaning $5 million, the e-mail said."

Goldman knew it profited from mortgage crisis - Apr. 24 2010

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Goldman knew it profited from mortgage crisis - Apr. 24 2010

of course thats idiotic. Goldman bought tons of worthless insurance from AIG in ignorance and would have gone bankrupt without bailout.