A Six-Point Plan to Restore Economic Growth and Prosperity

[bendog]

The last time Republicans deregulated, we had a disastrous recession.

There wasn't any "de-regulation," numskull.

yes there was, obscene child. In banking and investing ... gambling. But, reducing the number of fed regulations by 20% would not necessarily have anything to do with "deregulation."

I suppose you have some evidence for this claim?

I refer you to section 117 of the CFMA. To wit:

This Act shall supersede and preempt the application of any State or local law that prohibits or regulates gaming or the operation of bucket shops

Perhaps you will take some time to explain why banks needed exemptions from state gaming laws for casinos. Why does a bank need to be exempted from laws prohibiting bucket shops?

Hmmmm...

Those in the know understand exactly why. The banks wanted fraud legalized. And later on, their apologists would ask stupid questions like, "What laws did they break when they ripped off their clients?"

Superceding state regulatory laws is deregulation, by definition. And how come no states rights people screamed over this? Why didn't Fox News play some doom music and shout from the rooftops over this federal pre-emption? Huh? Huh? Huh?

As a former teacher, I learned long ago that attempts at educating obscene children are futile wastes of energy.

 

[g5000]

The last time Republicans deregulated, we had a disastrous recession.

There wasn't any "de-regulation," numskull.

yes there was, obscene child. In banking and investing ... gambling. But, reducing the number of fed regulations by 20% would not necessarily have anything to do with "deregulation."

While I like the principle of reviewing and retiring outdated or unnecessary regulations, I am opposed to arbitrary quotas which assume X percentage of regulations need to be retired.

To save money during the "peace dividend" days in the military, we were ordered to reduce training by 10 percent per year. This was an idiotic assumption that training could be reduced 10 percent without affecting readiness.

And so I am not in agreement with the presupposition that regulations must be reduced by 20 percent.

 

[g5000]

Credit default swaps were also unregulated insurance polices. They were exempted from insurable interest requirements, and as a result they amplified the losses of imploding CDOs built on toxic loans. And this led directly to the collapse of AIG, and contributed to the collapse of Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and Merrill Lynch.

 

[bendog]

The last time Republicans deregulated, we had a disastrous recession.

There wasn't any "de-regulation," numskull.

yes there was, obscene child. In banking and investing ... gambling. But, reducing the number of fed regulations by 20% would not necessarily have anything to do with "deregulation."

While I like the principle of reviewing and retiring outdated or unnecessary regulations, I am opposed to arbitrary quotas which assume X percentage of regulations need to be retired.

To save money during the "peace dividend" days in the military, we were ordered to reduce training by 10 percent per year. This was an idiotic assumption that training could be reduced 10 percent without affecting readiness.

And so I am not in agreement with the presupposition that regulations must be reduced by 20 percent.

Exactly, and actually Slick and Gore didn't do a terrible job on that in Slick's first term. It should be an ongoing task in each agency to simplify. As you say, it's impossible to reduce regulations in agencies that have expanding duties, like banking. But in others, like mining, we have too many regulations and not enough enforcement. But, this was a small part of the OP's plan. What really needs reform, and transparency, is taxes.

And, my post to the obscene child was really about the credit default swaps. The premise of banking deregulation was the belief by people like Greenspan that by trading default risk with each other, banks and investment houses would essentially self-regulate by spreading out risk over the entire industry. That might have worked had the people, who were buying housing debt, actually understood how much risk they were assuming for subprime loans and a bubble real estate market.

 

[bripat9643]

The last time Republicans deregulated, we had a disastrous recession.

There wasn't any "de-regulation," numskull.

yes there was, obscene child. In banking and investing ... gambling. But, reducing the number of fed regulations by 20% would not necessarily have anything to do with "deregulation."

I suppose you have some evidence for this claim?

I refer you to section 117 of the CFMA. To wit:

This Act shall supersede and preempt the application of any State or local law that prohibits or regulates gaming or the operation of bucket shops

Perhaps you will take some time to explain why banks needed exemptions from state gaming laws for casinos. Why does a bank need to be exempted from state laws prohibiting bucket shops?

Hmmmm...

Those in the know understand exactly why. The banks wanted fraud legalized. And later on, their apologists would ask stupid questions like, "What laws did they break when they ripped off their clients?"

Federal pre-emption of state regulatory laws is deregulation, by definition. And how come no states rights people screamed over this? Why didn't Fox News play some doom music and shout from the rooftops over this federal pre-emption? Huh? Huh? Huh?

That bill was signed by Clinton in 2000, and it affected commodities trading.

No banana.

You haven't posted any evidence that Republicans deregulated the banking system.

 

[bripat9643]

Credit default swaps were also unregulated insurance polices. They were exempted from insurable interest requirements, and as a result they amplified the losses of imploding CDOs built on toxic loans. And this led directly to the collapse of AIG, and contributed to the collapse of Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and Merrill Lynch.

Credit default swaps were never regulated, so you can't claim they were "deregulated." If there were no toxic loans forced on banks by government regulators, then the regulations on credit default swaps would have been irrelevant.

 

[g5000]

The last time Republicans deregulated, we had a disastrous recession.

There wasn't any "de-regulation," numskull.

yes there was, obscene child. In banking and investing ... gambling. But, reducing the number of fed regulations by 20% would not necessarily have anything to do with "deregulation."

I suppose you have some evidence for this claim?

I refer you to section 117 of the CFMA. To wit:

This Act shall supersede and preempt the application of any State or local law that prohibits or regulates gaming or the operation of bucket shops

Perhaps you will take some time to explain why banks needed exemptions from state gaming laws for casinos. Why does a bank need to be exempted from state laws prohibiting bucket shops?

Hmmmm...

Those in the know understand exactly why. The banks wanted fraud legalized. And later on, their apologists would ask stupid questions like, "What laws did they break when they ripped off their clients?"

Federal pre-emption of state regulatory laws is deregulation, by definition. And how come no states rights people screamed over this? Why didn't Fox News play some doom music and shout from the rooftops over this federal pre-emption? Huh? Huh? Huh?

That bill was signed by Clinton in 2000, and it affected commodities trading.

No banana.

You haven't posted any evidence that Republicans deregulated the banking system.

The bill was written by Republicans, and passed by the Republican Congress, including the infamous "Enron loophole".

Dipshit.

 

[g5000]

Here is some deregulation that is entirely on the Republicans: Final Rule Alternative Net Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers That Are Part of Consolidated Supervised Entities Rel. No. 34-49830 June 8 2004

The Commission is amending Rule 15c3-12 (the “net capital rule”) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) to establish a voluntary, alternative method of computing net capital for certain broker-dealers.

Bush's SEC voted unanimously in 2004 to waive the net capital rule for the 5 biggest broker-dealers. That waiver led directly to the demise of those broker-dealers.

All five of the broker-dealers who were given that extra special treatment by the SEC no longer exist as independent companies or have converted into bank holding companies so they could be bailed out.

Bear Stearns was the first to go under. Then Lehman Brothers went under. Then Merrill Lynch went under.

Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley converted to bank holding companies so they could receive bailout money.

 

[g5000]

Credit default swaps were also unregulated insurance polices. They were exempted from insurable interest requirements, and as a result they amplified the losses of imploding CDOs built on toxic loans. And this led directly to the collapse of AIG, and contributed to the collapse of Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and Merrill Lynch.

Credit default swaps were never regulated, so you can't claim they were "deregulated." If there were no toxic loans forced on banks by government regulators, then the regulations on credit default swaps would have been irrelevant.

The claim that banks were forced to make those loans is the biggest lie of all. Only people who are completely ignorant of the causes of the crisis parrot that bullshit.

 

[bripat9643]

The last time Republicans deregulated, we had a disastrous recession.

There wasn't any "de-regulation," numskull.

yes there was, obscene child. In banking and investing ... gambling. But, reducing the number of fed regulations by 20% would not necessarily have anything to do with "deregulation."

While I like the principle of reviewing and retiring outdated or unnecessary regulations, I am opposed to arbitrary quotas which assume X percentage of regulations need to be retired.

To save money during the "peace dividend" days in the military, we were ordered to reduce training by 10 percent per year. This was an idiotic assumption that training could be reduced 10 percent without affecting readiness.

And so I am not in agreement with the presupposition that regulations must be reduced by 20 percent.

Exactly, and actually Slick and Gore didn't do a terrible job on that in Slick's first term. It should be an ongoing task in each agency to simplify. As you say, it's impossible to reduce regulations in agencies that have expanding duties, like banking. But in others, like mining, we have too many regulations and not enough enforcement. But, this was a small part of the OP's plan. What really needs reform, and transparency, is taxes.

And, my post to the obscene child was really about the credit default swaps. The premise of banking deregulation was the belief by people like Greenspan that by trading default risk with each other, banks and investment houses would essentially self-regulate by spreading out risk over the entire industry. That might have worked had the people, who were buying housing debt, actually understood how much risk they were assuming for subprime loans and a bubble real estate market.

As I already stated, and neither you have managed to disprove, there was no deregulation of banks by Republicans. The regulations were actually increased, and government forced banks to give mortgages to people who couldn't pay them.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Further, tax foreign corporate income at 5%–10%, and let companies bring it back home to invest here. This strategy will actually increase tax revenues.

Economists of just about all stripes estimate that this move alone would bring about $2 trillion back into our economy, and it is downright baffling that Democrats block it every time Republicans propose it. Canada taxes foreign corporate income at a fraction of our absurd repatriated income rate. That money is gonna stay parked overseas until we adopt a sane foreign corporate income tax rate.

Obama wants to lower the foreign corporate income tax to 19%, and tax the income currently being hoarded overseas at 14%. The Republicans want a total amnesty on income currently being hoarded overseas.

Democrats lack the IQ to know that corporations are tax collectors not tax payers. Get it?? They cover the cost of the tax like they cover all costs, by putting them in the prices they charge us. Its stupid beyond belief but that is the exact essence of liberalism.

funny how the smartest presidents are all democrats and pubs keep crashing our economy.

but you can pretend the right is smarter if it makes you feel better about yourself.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Only people who are completely ignorant of the causes of the crisis parrot that bullshit.

dear, the cause of the crash was Fanny/Freddie who held 75% of all the subprime Alt A loans at the time of the crash. That debate is over I'm' afriad.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The regulations were actually increased, and government forced banks to give mortgages to people who couldn't pay them.

very very true!! affordable housing regulation goals kept being increased by liberals until Fan/Fred were required to have 60% of their business in subprime Alt A mortgages. When the crash came they had 31 million of those mortgages.

To make matters worse private companies had to have even lower standards to compete since Fan/Fred had cheaper money to loan because of the lib govt backing.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

funny how the smartest presidents are all democrats and pubs keep crashing our economy.

pubs crashing?? dear, do you have an example or are just lying??

 

[g5000]

Only people who are completely ignorant of the causes of the crisis parrot that bullshit.

dear, the cause of the crash was Fanny/Freddie who held 75% of all the subprime Alt A loans at the time of the crash. That debate is over I'm' afriad.

Sorry, dufus, but the GSE's market share shrank as the bubble grew. By 2005, they were only 30 percent of the loan origination market.

You seem to forget it was Bear Stearns that went under first. Then Lehman Brothers. Then Merrill Lynch. And not one of the broker-dealers who collapsed or had to be rescued was subject to the CRA.

You also seem to forget this was a global derivatives bubble. RBS, HSBC, AIB, the entire banking system of Iceland. Italy, Spain, Germany. You going to blame the negroes of Iceland for their banking collapse?

As I said, only a complete ignoramus parrots those lies about banks being forced to make the toxic loans.

You won't find a single banker anywhere who supports your lie. Not one of them whined they were forced to make the loans that brought them down, because they weren't forced. Some parroting dipshit in Congress who watched too much Fox News tried to get Dick Fuld to blame the CRA and Fuld scoffed. "De minimus".

So, yeah. The debate is definitely over. It was over five minutes after some ignorant tard who knew nothing about the collapse tried to blame the CRA. The fire had just started and right away the assholes tried to blame it on the negroes without knowing a thing about the causes.

Tards like you keep repeating the completely debunked bullshit like so many Whack-A-Moles.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Bush's SEC voted unanimously in 2004 to waive the net capital rule for the 5 biggest broker-dealers.

dear banks of all kinds and in all places went under in the crash even when not subject to SEC rules so that argument is idiotic. Liberal regulation that always increased the affordable housing goals was the proximate cause of the crisis.

 

[Uncensored2008]

30% of what? Their off-shore assets? After deductions are counted? Before subsidies are counted? After deferred taxes due to depreciation of equipment and vehicles? After credits for investments? Credit for losses? After stock devaluation?

In other words, 30% of what cash and assets?

Sales.

But it rebates 15% on domestically produced goods yielding a lower rate for domestic producers. It places greater burden on Obama and Jeffery Immelt when they move jobs to China.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Sorry, dufus, but the GSE's market share shrank as the bubble grew. By 2005, they were only 30 percent of the loan origination market.
.

dear, the affordable housing goal under which they operated required 56% subprime and Alt A mortgages which they had at time of crash. This amounted to 76% of all such mortgages.

Think about it dear Fan/Fred were created to get people into houses the Republican free market said they could not afford and then when they indeed could not afford them you claim they had nothing to do with crash??

See why we say liberals are stupid??.

 

[Uncensored2008]

#3 is commonly called a Value Added Tax. Politicians love it because it's hidden from consumers. It's a tax that promotes government.

No thanks.

I support consumption tax over direct taxation. The net of the proposal is a reduction from 25% to 15% for those goods produced domestically.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So, yeah. The debate is definitely over.

Why not listen to Barney??


Barney Frank: "I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fanny Freddie... it was a great mistake to push lower income people into homes they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it"



barney Frank:"These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."-Barney Frank