Whores For Wall Street

[dblack]

"A patriot must always be willing to defend his country from his government"

 

[Wildman]

at least the republicans in congress could use a little Vaseline on their pals that vote for them, lie for them, make every excuse known to man for them, yammer talking points over and over even when those talking points are proven false for them, etc etc etc, FOR THEM.

one of these days all of you RW dopes will wake up and understand its all about THEM, and you're their f'n puppets ..

get it now?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

lie for them, make every excuse known to man for them, yammer talking points over and over even when those talking points are proven false for them, etc etc etc,

WOW !! you just described a demo-dummy perfectly, as can be witnessed here every day, thank you

now, go yourself .........

 

[whitehall]

In case low information lefties are unaware the federal government is still a 2/3 democrat majority. If hate filled lefties came to their senses like the majority of Americans they would realize that six years of Obama and Harry Reid brought this Country to near ruin.

 

[peach174]

I'm not correct in a way. I AM correct. Period.

Getting deep in this thread and any thread the above posts in.

To recap:

The Republiteaparty House was "for it" because they wanted to do what they always do- sock it to the poor/fluff wall st.

The President was "for it" because he knows the incoming Repub House would draft an even more draconian bill.

The Senate passed it but there were enough non-corporate/dynasty Dems to cry foul over the Repubs putting the taxpayers back on the hook to insure Wall St gambling.

That's not true Dot. No part of the Dodd Frank Bill was changed that puts the taxpayers back on the hook.
The Dodd Frank bill provided large institutions with funding advantages over their smaller rivals. Sec. 716 was changed to make it a more even field for smaller banks.
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20141208/CPRT-113-HPRT-RU00-HR83sa.pdf
Page 615

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I'm not correct in a way. I AM correct. Period.

Getting deep in this thread and any thread the above posts in.

To recap:

The Republiteaparty House was "for it" because they wanted to do what they always do- sock it to the poor/fluff wall st.

The President was "for it" because he knows the incoming Repub House would draft an even more draconian bill.

The Senate passed it but there were enough non-corporate/dynasty Dems to cry foul over the Repubs putting the taxpayers back on the hook to insure Wall St gambling.

That's not true Dot. No part of the Dodd Frank Bill was changed that puts the taxpayers back on the hook.
The Dodd Frank bill provided large institutions with funding advantages over their smaller rivals. Sec. 716 was changed to make it a more even field for smaller banks.
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20141208/CPRT-113-HPRT-RU00-HR83sa.pdf
Page 615

The section is question is explicit. The swap provision allows financial institutions to trade certain financial derivatives from subsidiaries that are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

In other words, the tax payer just got hooked for any fall out in the over 300 trillion in derivatives US banks are holding. If you are unsure how this all works, there are plenty of videos and other research tools to explain it.

 

[JoeNormal]

Voting makes believe that the individuals looking to get into office can change the systemic failure of the system itself.

Your reading comprehension is weak.

I wrote that you vote for the plutocrat that will harm you and your family the LEAST.

Who in the fuck thinks they can select a candidate that will change the system?

And while YOU think that your lack of voting gives you some sort of right to bitch, without your participation your bitching means nothing.

BTW, who is it that is forcing you to do anything? You elected to just go with the flow when you opted out of voting. There was no force involved.

So I tacitly complied because I didn't participate in the window dressing known as voting?



Listen up, YOU vote and that gives this system legitimacy. They will take my money by force and spend it up on whatever bullshit they want regardless of my wishes.
All you fucks have in here is bitching.

You think anything is going to be different? They will tell you what to do, seize your property for their own use and you just go back for another helping. You believe voting changes anything when it does not. Not even a little bit.

You're a fool and a tool for the very people that ass rape you daily. I'm just along for the ride complaining about not only the fucks you elect, but YOU too. Because YOU are part of the problem.

Why don't you register a protest vote for the Green party or something? Just opting out isn't sending any kind of a message except, I've given up and you're free to ass fuck me at will.

 

[dblack]

Voting makes believe that the individuals looking to get into office can change the systemic failure of the system itself.

Your reading comprehension is weak.

I wrote that you vote for the plutocrat that will harm you and your family the LEAST.

Who in the fuck thinks they can select a candidate that will change the system?

And while YOU think that your lack of voting gives you some sort of right to bitch, without your participation your bitching means nothing.

BTW, who is it that is forcing you to do anything? You elected to just go with the flow when you opted out of voting. There was no force involved.

So I tacitly complied because I didn't participate in the window dressing known as voting?



Listen up, YOU vote and that gives this system legitimacy. They will take my money by force and spend it up on whatever bullshit they want regardless of my wishes.
All you fucks have in here is bitching.

You think anything is going to be different? They will tell you what to do, seize your property for their own use and you just go back for another helping. You believe voting changes anything when it does not. Not even a little bit.

You're a fool and a tool for the very people that ass rape you daily. I'm just along for the ride complaining about not only the fucks you elect, but YOU too. Because YOU are part of the problem.

Why don't you register a protest vote for the Green party or something? Just opting out isn't sending any kind of a message except, I've given up and you're free to ass fuck me at will.

It's more than that. It's the equivalent of a 'no confidence' vote. Low voter turn out is a clear indication of how much citizens value the voting process. Most people, quite rationally, recognize that the electoral process is dominated by organized interest groups. As a consequence, the effort of educating oneself enough to cast an informed vote isn't generally worth the potential benefit.

 

[JoeNormal]

Voting makes believe that the individuals looking to get into office can change the systemic failure of the system itself.

Your reading comprehension is weak.

I wrote that you vote for the plutocrat that will harm you and your family the LEAST.

Who in the fuck thinks they can select a candidate that will change the system?

And while YOU think that your lack of voting gives you some sort of right to bitch, without your participation your bitching means nothing.

BTW, who is it that is forcing you to do anything? You elected to just go with the flow when you opted out of voting. There was no force involved.

So I tacitly complied because I didn't participate in the window dressing known as voting?



Listen up, YOU vote and that gives this system legitimacy. They will take my money by force and spend it up on whatever bullshit they want regardless of my wishes.
All you fucks have in here is bitching.

You think anything is going to be different? They will tell you what to do, seize your property for their own use and you just go back for another helping. You believe voting changes anything when it does not. Not even a little bit.

You're a fool and a tool for the very people that ass rape you daily. I'm just along for the ride complaining about not only the fucks you elect, but YOU too. Because YOU are part of the problem.

Why don't you register a protest vote for the Green party or something? Just opting out isn't sending any kind of a message except, I've given up and you're free to ass fuck me at will.

It's more than that. It's the equivalent of a 'no confidence' vote. Low voter turn out is a clear indication of how much citizens value the voting process. Most people, quite rationally, recognize that the electoral process is dominated by organized interest groups. As a consequence, the effort of educating oneself enough to cast an informed vote isn't generally worth the potential benefit.

I tend to agree that voting has become a fairly useless exercise but it seems to me that the powers that be would welcome what appears to be apathy because it's essentially non-resistance.

 

[peach174]

I'm not correct in a way. I AM correct. Period.

Getting deep in this thread and any thread the above posts in.

To recap:

The Republiteaparty House was "for it" because they wanted to do what they always do- sock it to the poor/fluff wall st.

The President was "for it" because he knows the incoming Repub House would draft an even more draconian bill.

The Senate passed it but there were enough non-corporate/dynasty Dems to cry foul over the Repubs putting the taxpayers back on the hook to insure Wall St gambling.

That's not true Dot. No part of the Dodd Frank Bill was changed that puts the taxpayers back on the hook.
The Dodd Frank bill provided large institutions with funding advantages over their smaller rivals. Sec. 716 was changed to make it a more even field for smaller banks.
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20141208/CPRT-113-HPRT-RU00-HR83sa.pdf
Page 615

The section is question is explicit. The swap provision allows financial institutions to trade certain financial derivatives from subsidiaries that are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

In other words, the tax payer just got hooked for any fall out in the over 300 trillion in derivatives US banks are holding. If you are unsure how this all works, there are plenty of videos and other research tools to explain it.

No they didn't.

Section 716 of the Dodd Frank bill required financial institutions to push out almost all of their derivatives business into separate entities.
It increased transaction costs, which are ultimately paid by the consumers and it made our financial system less secure by forcing swap trading out of regulated institutions.

 

[Dot Com]

I'm not correct in a way. I AM correct. Period.

Getting deep in this thread and any thread the above posts in.

To recap:

The Republiteaparty House was "for it" because they wanted to do what they always do- sock it to the poor/fluff wall st.

The President was "for it" because he knows the incoming Repub House would draft an even more draconian bill.

The Senate passed it but there were enough non-corporate/dynasty Dems to cry foul over the Repubs putting the taxpayers back on the hook to insure Wall St gambling.

That's not true Dot. No part of the Dodd Frank Bill was changed that puts the taxpayers back on the hook.
The Dodd Frank bill provided large institutions with funding advantages over their smaller rivals. Sec. 716 was changed to make it a more even field for smaller banks.
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20141208/CPRT-113-HPRT-RU00-HR83sa.pdf
Page 615

The section is question is explicit. The swap provision allows financial institutions to trade certain financial derivatives from subsidiaries that are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

In other words, the tax payer just got hooked for any fall out in the over 300 trillion in derivatives US banks are holding. If you are unsure how this all works, there are plenty of videos and other research tools to explain it.

No they didn't.

Section 716 of the Dodd Frank bill required financial institutions to push out almost all of their derivatives business into separate entities.
It increased transaction costs, which are ultimately paid by the consumers and it made our financial system less secure by forcing swap trading out of regulated institutions.

the only link you have is from the House? REPUB House

Heres something from forbes:

With Dodd-Frank Rollback The Big Bad Banks Are Back - Forbes

The provision enables the big banks once again to use insured deposits and other taxpayer subsidies and guarantees to gamble in the derivatives markets—the very type of business that drove the 2008 financial crisis and the economic devastation that followed.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I'm not correct in a way. I AM correct. Period.

Getting deep in this thread and any thread the above posts in.

To recap:

The Republiteaparty House was "for it" because they wanted to do what they always do- sock it to the poor/fluff wall st.

The President was "for it" because he knows the incoming Repub House would draft an even more draconian bill.

The Senate passed it but there were enough non-corporate/dynasty Dems to cry foul over the Repubs putting the taxpayers back on the hook to insure Wall St gambling.

That's not true Dot. No part of the Dodd Frank Bill was changed that puts the taxpayers back on the hook.
The Dodd Frank bill provided large institutions with funding advantages over their smaller rivals. Sec. 716 was changed to make it a more even field for smaller banks.
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20141208/CPRT-113-HPRT-RU00-HR83sa.pdf
Page 615

The section is question is explicit. The swap provision allows financial institutions to trade certain financial derivatives from subsidiaries that are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

In other words, the tax payer just got hooked for any fall out in the over 300 trillion in derivatives US banks are holding. If you are unsure how this all works, there are plenty of videos and other research tools to explain it.

No they didn't.

Section 716 of the Dodd Frank bill required financial institutions to push out almost all of their derivatives business into separate entities.
It increased transaction costs, which are ultimately paid by the consumers and it made our financial system less secure by forcing swap trading out of regulated institutions.

the only link you have is from the House? REPUB House

Heres something from forbes:

With Dodd-Frank Rollback The Big Bad Banks Are Back - Forbes

The provision enables the big banks once again to use insured deposits and other taxpayer subsidies and guarantees to gamble in the derivatives markets—the very type of business that drove the 2008 financial crisis and the economic devastation that followed.

Dottie fails again at being objective.

 

[Dot Com]

Getting deep in this thread and any thread the above posts in.

To recap:

The Republiteaparty House was "for it" because they wanted to do what they always do- sock it to the poor/fluff wall st.

The President was "for it" because he knows the incoming Repub House would draft an even more draconian bill.

The Senate passed it but there were enough non-corporate/dynasty Dems to cry foul over the Repubs putting the taxpayers back on the hook to insure Wall St gambling.

That's not true Dot. No part of the Dodd Frank Bill was changed that puts the taxpayers back on the hook.
The Dodd Frank bill provided large institutions with funding advantages over their smaller rivals. Sec. 716 was changed to make it a more even field for smaller banks.
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20141208/CPRT-113-HPRT-RU00-HR83sa.pdf
Page 615

The section is question is explicit. The swap provision allows financial institutions to trade certain financial derivatives from subsidiaries that are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

In other words, the tax payer just got hooked for any fall out in the over 300 trillion in derivatives US banks are holding. If you are unsure how this all works, there are plenty of videos and other research tools to explain it.

No they didn't.

Section 716 of the Dodd Frank bill required financial institutions to push out almost all of their derivatives business into separate entities.
It increased transaction costs, which are ultimately paid by the consumers and it made our financial system less secure by forcing swap trading out of regulated institutions.

the only link you have is from the House? REPUB House

Heres something from forbes:

With Dodd-Frank Rollback The Big Bad Banks Are Back - Forbes

The provision enables the big banks once again to use insured deposits and other taxpayer subsidies and guarantees to gamble in the derivatives markets—the very type of business that drove the 2008 financial crisis and the economic devastation that followed.

Dottie fails again at being objective.

So Forbes is now anti-business?