Republicans: why raising taxes on the wealthy is good for the economy

[JoeNormal]

Did you and bripat sleep through the financial crisis? Every day for a couple of years there were new revelations as to how fucked up our financial system was and how greedy, slimy and incompetent the guys who ran it were. Yeah I know, it reflects poorly on your profession so you would much prefer to ignore it.

No evidence,no surprise.
WHo "runs our financial system"? I want names.

Google is your friend. I don't have time to hold your hand through a period of discovery that you'll have to be dragged kicking and screaming through anyway.

Translation: I dont let facts interfere with my beliefs.
No you dont, poor thing.

You have to be the most pig headed piece of shit on this board. I showed you some convenient sources since you seem to be loath to actually read anything about it. Pump some knowledge into that vacuous chamber you carry around on your shoulders sunshine.

You posted an allegation by one person that even if true did not support your thesis. I cant help it if your education ended at 2nd grade. Post something substantive or STFU.

I posted something substantive which you of course stripped out of your response. Really, is that supposed to make you more authoritative somehow?

 

[The Rabbi]

No evidence,no surprise.
WHo "runs our financial system"? I want names.

Google is your friend. I don't have time to hold your hand through a period of discovery that you'll have to be dragged kicking and screaming through anyway.

Translation: I dont let facts interfere with my beliefs.
No you dont, poor thing.

You have to be the most pig headed piece of shit on this board. I showed you some convenient sources since you seem to be loath to actually read anything about it. Pump some knowledge into that vacuous chamber you carry around on your shoulders sunshine.

You posted an allegation by one person that even if true did not support your thesis. I cant help it if your education ended at 2nd grade. Post something substantive or STFU.

I posted something substantive which you of course stripped out of your response. Really, is that supposed to make you more authoritative somehow?

LOL! What a loser. STFU, loser.

 

[JoeNormal]

Did you and bripat sleep through the financial crisis? Every day for a couple of years there were new revelations as to how fucked up our financial system was and how greedy, slimy and incompetent the guys who ran it were. Yeah I know, it reflects poorly on your profession so you would much prefer to ignore it.

No evidence,no surprise.
WHo "runs our financial system"? I want names.

Google is your friend. I don't have time to hold your hand through a period of discovery that you'll have to be dragged kicking and screaming through anyway.

Translation: I dont let facts interfere with my beliefs.
No you dont, poor thing.

You have to be the most pig headed piece of shit on this board. I showed you some convenient sources since you seem to be loath to actually read anything about it. Pump some knowledge into that vacuous chamber you carry around on your shoulders sunshine.

You posted an allegation by one person that even if true did not support your thesis. I cant help it if your education ended at 2nd grade. Post something substantive or STFU.

I'm kind of busy this morning so as much fun as it sounds to dig up a whole bunch of other sources which you'll ignore or deny, I think I'll take a pass.

Don't feel bad. You don't need to convince anyone else in order to keep your illusions.

 

[zeke]

Damn rabbit, you still using that rabbit hole of reverse logic for your supposed ahhem "arguments?

You posted an allegation by one person that even if true did not support your thesis.

Like how could a allegation shown to be true not support the thesis, when that very allegation was intended to be presented as both true and in support of the thesis?

Sillywabbit.

Rabbit hole logic is how. Right rabbit?

 

[Flash]

No evidence,no surprise.
WHo "runs our financial system"? I want names.

Google is your friend. I don't have time to hold your hand through a period of discovery that you'll have to be dragged kicking and screaming through anyway.

Translation: I dont let facts interfere with my beliefs.
No you dont, poor thing.

You have to be the most pig headed piece of shit on this board. I showed you some convenient sources since you seem to be loath to actually read anything about it. Pump some knowledge into that vacuous chamber you carry around on your shoulders sunshine.

You posted an allegation by one person that even if true did not support your thesis. I cant help it if your education ended at 2nd grade. Post something substantive or STFU.

I posted something substantive which you of course stripped out of your response. Really, is that supposed to make you more authoritative somehow?

"Google is your friend" is not substantial.

 

[bripat9643]

In short, they didn't break any laws.

Thanks for playing!

There are laws against everything I listed.

There's a crime called "gaming the system?" Strange, I've never heard of it. Can you quote the statute?

It's called collusion, dummy. I guess you must've missed that part.

"Collusion" between who? You're great for listing vague generalities, but no specifics. If I "collude" with my wife on what Christmas presents to buy for the kids, am I breaking the law? "Collusion" is only against the law of you are colluding to do something illegal. So what illegal activity where the "colluding" to do?

I'm sure it goes way deeper than this but for one, they colluded with the ratings firms so that they appeared to be safe and secure.

Ratings agencies suffer conflict of interest says former Moody s boss Business The Guardian

Where's the evidence for that?

 

[bripat9643]

In short, they didn't break any laws.

Thanks for playing!

There are laws against everything I listed.

There's a crime called "gaming the system?" Strange, I've never heard of it. Can you quote the statute?

It's called collusion, dummy. I guess you must've missed that part.

"Collusion" between who? You're great for listing vague generalities, but no specifics. If I "collude" with my wife on what Christmas presents to buy for the kids, am I breaking the law? "Collusion" is only against the law of you are colluding to do something illegal. So what illegal activity where the "colluding" to do?

I'm sure it goes way deeper than this but for one, they colluded with the ratings firms so that they appeared to be safe and secure.

Ratings agencies suffer conflict of interest says former Moody s boss Business The Guardian

Having a conflict of interest is not the same as "colluding" to commit a crime. Every government regulator has a conflict of interest.

 

[JoeNormal]

Google is your friend. I don't have time to hold your hand through a period of discovery that you'll have to be dragged kicking and screaming through anyway.

Translation: I dont let facts interfere with my beliefs.
No you dont, poor thing.

You have to be the most pig headed piece of shit on this board. I showed you some convenient sources since you seem to be loath to actually read anything about it. Pump some knowledge into that vacuous chamber you carry around on your shoulders sunshine.

You posted an allegation by one person that even if true did not support your thesis. I cant help it if your education ended at 2nd grade. Post something substantive or STFU.

I posted something substantive which you of course stripped out of your response. Really, is that supposed to make you more authoritative somehow?

"Google is your friend" is not substantial.

You know, you might want to read my actual response rather than the bastardized version found in Rabbi's reply.

 

[JoeNormal]

There are laws against everything I listed.

There's a crime called "gaming the system?" Strange, I've never heard of it. Can you quote the statute?

It's called collusion, dummy. I guess you must've missed that part.

"Collusion" between who? You're great for listing vague generalities, but no specifics. If I "collude" with my wife on what Christmas presents to buy for the kids, am I breaking the law? "Collusion" is only against the law of you are colluding to do something illegal. So what illegal activity where the "colluding" to do?

I'm sure it goes way deeper than this but for one, they colluded with the ratings firms so that they appeared to be safe and secure.

Ratings agencies suffer conflict of interest says former Moody s boss Business The Guardian

Having a conflict of interest is not the same as "colluding" to commit a crime. Every government regulator has a conflict of interest.

What's the government regulator's conflict of interest?

 

[bripat9643]

There's a crime called "gaming the system?" Strange, I've never heard of it. Can you quote the statute?

It's called collusion, dummy. I guess you must've missed that part.

"Collusion" between who? You're great for listing vague generalities, but no specifics. If I "collude" with my wife on what Christmas presents to buy for the kids, am I breaking the law? "Collusion" is only against the law of you are colluding to do something illegal. So what illegal activity where the "colluding" to do?

I'm sure it goes way deeper than this but for one, they colluded with the ratings firms so that they appeared to be safe and secure.

Ratings agencies suffer conflict of interest says former Moody s boss Business The Guardian

Having a conflict of interest is not the same as "colluding" to commit a crime. Every government regulator has a conflict of interest.

What's the government regulator's conflict of interest?

Many government regulators go to work for the companies they regulate after they retire from government. Furthermore, the are also usually friends with the personnel they deal with in many of the companies they regulate. They also have a vested interest in increasing the scope of government regulations since that provides more jobs for regulators.

 

[JoeNormal]

It's called collusion, dummy. I guess you must've missed that part.

"Collusion" between who? You're great for listing vague generalities, but no specifics. If I "collude" with my wife on what Christmas presents to buy for the kids, am I breaking the law? "Collusion" is only against the law of you are colluding to do something illegal. So what illegal activity where the "colluding" to do?

I'm sure it goes way deeper than this but for one, they colluded with the ratings firms so that they appeared to be safe and secure.

Ratings agencies suffer conflict of interest says former Moody s boss Business The Guardian

Having a conflict of interest is not the same as "colluding" to commit a crime. Every government regulator has a conflict of interest.

What's the government regulator's conflict of interest?

Many government regulators go to work for the companies they regulate after they retire from government. Furthermore, the are also usually friends with the personnel they deal with in many of the companies they regulate. They also have a vested interest in increasing the scope of government regulations since that provides more jobs for regulators.

Well that's one of the many things that need to change in the financial sector. (And in the lobbying sector.)

 

[bripat9643]

"Collusion" between who? You're great for listing vague generalities, but no specifics. If I "collude" with my wife on what Christmas presents to buy for the kids, am I breaking the law? "Collusion" is only against the law of you are colluding to do something illegal. So what illegal activity where the "colluding" to do?

I'm sure it goes way deeper than this but for one, they colluded with the ratings firms so that they appeared to be safe and secure.

Ratings agencies suffer conflict of interest says former Moody s boss Business The Guardian

Having a conflict of interest is not the same as "colluding" to commit a crime. Every government regulator has a conflict of interest.

What's the government regulator's conflict of interest?

Many government regulators go to work for the companies they regulate after they retire from government. Furthermore, the are also usually friends with the personnel they deal with in many of the companies they regulate. They also have a vested interest in increasing the scope of government regulations since that provides more jobs for regulators.

Well that's one of the many things that need to change in the financial sector. (And in the lobbying sector.)

In other words, no laws were broken.

Thanks for playing!

 

[JoeNormal]

I'm sure it goes way deeper than this but for one, they colluded with the ratings firms so that they appeared to be safe and secure.

Ratings agencies suffer conflict of interest says former Moody s boss Business The Guardian

Having a conflict of interest is not the same as "colluding" to commit a crime. Every government regulator has a conflict of interest.

What's the government regulator's conflict of interest?

Many government regulators go to work for the companies they regulate after they retire from government. Furthermore, the are also usually friends with the personnel they deal with in many of the companies they regulate. They also have a vested interest in increasing the scope of government regulations since that provides more jobs for regulators.

Well that's one of the many things that need to change in the financial sector. (And in the lobbying sector.)

In other words, no laws were broken.

Thanks for playing!

That's not what I'm saying at all. Whether it was legal or not to go to work for a ratings agency after a government stint, it's clearly illegal to skew the ratings of the financial institutions however that happens. Since they've shown that they lack the integrity to keep their conflicts of interest from affecting their job function, that ability should prohibited.

 

[The Rabbi]

Having a conflict of interest is not the same as "colluding" to commit a crime. Every government regulator has a conflict of interest.

What's the government regulator's conflict of interest?

Many government regulators go to work for the companies they regulate after they retire from government. Furthermore, the are also usually friends with the personnel they deal with in many of the companies they regulate. They also have a vested interest in increasing the scope of government regulations since that provides more jobs for regulators.

Well that's one of the many things that need to change in the financial sector. (And in the lobbying sector.)

In other words, no laws were broken.

Thanks for playing!

That's not what I'm saying at all. Whether it was legal or not to go to work for a ratings agency after a government stint, it's clearly illegal to skew the ratings of the financial institutions however that happens. Since they've shown that they lack the integrity to keep their conflicts of interest from affecting their job function, that ability should prohibited.

Where are the indictments? Seems you're all talk and no substance here.

 

[JoeNormal]

What's the government regulator's conflict of interest?

Many government regulators go to work for the companies they regulate after they retire from government. Furthermore, the are also usually friends with the personnel they deal with in many of the companies they regulate. They also have a vested interest in increasing the scope of government regulations since that provides more jobs for regulators.

Well that's one of the many things that need to change in the financial sector. (And in the lobbying sector.)

In other words, no laws were broken.

Thanks for playing!

That's not what I'm saying at all. Whether it was legal or not to go to work for a ratings agency after a government stint, it's clearly illegal to skew the ratings of the financial institutions however that happens. Since they've shown that they lack the integrity to keep their conflicts of interest from affecting their job function, that ability should prohibited.

Where are the indictments? Seems you're all talk and no substance here.

As I said before, the corporatocracy (that includes the financial sector) have effectively bought our elected officials. There's no will to prosecute.

 

[The Rabbi]

Many government regulators go to work for the companies they regulate after they retire from government. Furthermore, the are also usually friends with the personnel they deal with in many of the companies they regulate. They also have a vested interest in increasing the scope of government regulations since that provides more jobs for regulators.

Well that's one of the many things that need to change in the financial sector. (And in the lobbying sector.)

In other words, no laws were broken.

Thanks for playing!

That's not what I'm saying at all. Whether it was legal or not to go to work for a ratings agency after a government stint, it's clearly illegal to skew the ratings of the financial institutions however that happens. Since they've shown that they lack the integrity to keep their conflicts of interest from affecting their job function, that ability should prohibited.

Where are the indictments? Seems you're all talk and no substance here.

As I said before, the corporatocracy (that includes the financial sector) have effectively bought our elected officials. There's no will to prosecute.

Banks have paid billions of dollars in fines to the Federal gov't. If they had bought them they got a bad deal.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

As I said before, the corporatocracy (that includes the financial sector) have effectively bought our elected officials. There's no will to prosecute.

why prosecute them when thanks to capitalism they everyday must fight with each other to raise our standard of living at the fastest possible rate?

If 100 men were in competition to save your life would you be smart to interfere with their activity??

Now do you understand?

 

[JoeNormal]

Well that's one of the many things that need to change in the financial sector. (And in the lobbying sector.)

In other words, no laws were broken.

Thanks for playing!

That's not what I'm saying at all. Whether it was legal or not to go to work for a ratings agency after a government stint, it's clearly illegal to skew the ratings of the financial institutions however that happens. Since they've shown that they lack the integrity to keep their conflicts of interest from affecting their job function, that ability should prohibited.

Where are the indictments? Seems you're all talk and no substance here.

As I said before, the corporatocracy (that includes the financial sector) have effectively bought our elected officials. There's no will to prosecute.

Banks have paid billions of dollars in fines to the Federal gov't. If they had bought them they got a bad deal.

That's their business model. Pay billions in fines - get over a trillion from the tax payers. Makes me long for the days when Microsoft only had to pay 100 million for their tens of billions worth of IP theft.

 

[JoeNormal]

As I said before, the corporatocracy (that includes the financial sector) have effectively bought our elected officials. There's no will to prosecute.

why prosecute them when thanks to capitalism they everyday must fight with each other to raise our standard of living at the fastest possible rate?

If 100 men were in competition to save your life would you be smart to interfere with their activity??

Now do you understand?

Wow, that's some weak sauce there.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Whether it was legal or not to go to work for a ratings agency after a government stint, it's clearly illegal to skew the ratings of the financial institutions however that happens. Since they've shown that they lack the integrity to keep their conflicts of interest from affecting their job function, that ability should prohibited.

dear, as a liberal should you really be offering an opinion??

"It was regulations that created these "nationally recognized statistical rating organizations" (NRSROs) and then erected barriers to entry to protect the big three. Then it was the regulations that forced the use of those rating agencies by any company that wished to issue debt. And it was the regulations that created the "issuer pays" business model."

"Proponents of the theory of "regulation fixes everything" can only see regulatory failure in hindsight as a failure of not enough regulation, or regulation applied unevenly. But often, no one can foresee the long-term effects of regulations."