HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

hate to even bring this up,as he isn't president now,but the Bush admin pulled the last oversight off. the idea was companys with good mgmt would prosper and the ones with bad mgmt would fall by the wayside.Only problem was when it came time for the ones to fall they were (to big to fail) so they had the first TARP.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by ekim008

hate to even bring this up,as he isn't president now,but the Bush admin pulled the last oversight off. the idea was companys with good mgmt would prosper and the ones with bad mgmt would fall by the wayside.Only problem was when it came time for the ones to fall they were (to big to fail) so they had the first TARP.

they weren't watching these guys and basically ignored any warning signs/signals that things weren't kosher like that Madoff fiasco which is why they had the first TARP.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Why is it every Liberal thinks the only solutions are in bigger government, more complex laws, more regulations, more taxes?

It's funny; your example is exactly the problem. You have the cops showing up AFTER the crime !

.

Yes the example went over your head, let me be more specific.

The neighboorhood told the cop to leave. They said they were all fine upstanding citizens and it was a waste of money and time having them there. There presence impended busimness they argued.

The cop , forgetting about the robberbaron era , believed them. In fact the neighbors got Phil Gramm to write a law saying we do not need a cop when gamblers (investment banks) and regular banks live, in fact they can marry.

Goldman and many others then makes bets with AIG. AIG loses and can not pay. Goldman then ask you , the taxpayers to make good on AIG's bet. This despite the fact that Goldman lies about the bet and showed AIG bogus bundled investment paper as AAA.

We , the people then pony up.

Nobody goes to jail!

The Tea Party is born ...and there is hope but it turns out that they are retarded. THey do not have a clue of what just happened and they get in bed with the GOP at start crying about birth certificates.

The investment bankers are thrilled. THe retarded kids are diverting the attention away from the real problem. Trump is like their Pied Piper.

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

The next Madoff/AIG/Lehman is around the corner, and the regulators (and thier political enablers) will still be sleeping. Fat, happy and secure in knowing they will never be held accountable.

Well Madoff was held accountable.

Had some of these other folks went to jail, it would be a different story.

THey are not held accountable because they run the government.

This is where you retarded Tea Nuts just do not get it. Big Business runs the government. You can blame the government if you like but that just shows a total lack of seeing the big picture.

Big Business=Government.

The Fed is the Godfather. He protects his family of investment bankers.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

they weren't watching these guys and basically ignored any warning signs/signals that things weren't kosher like that Madoff fiasco which is why they had the first TARP.

Madoff had nothing to do with TARP.

Madoff had greedy investors that believed in the Tooth Fairy.

Madoff went to jail and the greedy investors lost money. That is how it should be. Criminial should go to jail.

The investment bankers run this country.

Madoff was chump change.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by WTF

Madoff had nothing to do with TARP.

Madoff had greedy investors that believed in the Tooth Fairy.

Madoff went to jail and the greedy investors lost money. That is how it should be. Criminial should go to jail.

The investment bankers run this country.

Madoff was chump change.

while its true that Madoff had nothing to do with the TARP, but he illustrated what happens when SEC were warned of some abberations/discrepenacies with Madoff investments over a 10 year period and they did nothing. SEC finally moved when someone (I think one of his sons) blew the whistle on Madoff.

[WTF]

Madoff is a pimple on an elephants ass compared to the real problem. You tea nuts do not understand. Big business has bought government, yet you think big business is the answer! The problem is to big to fail. You wackos do not get it. You limit the size of business.

[CuteOldGuy]

Without the government protecting big business, their size will naturally be limited.

[Old-T]

I don't know that's true. There are some industries where size conveys some serious advantages if used ruthlessly. Monopolies seemed to do quite will pre-regulation.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Without the government protecting big business, their size will naturally be limited.

That is total bullshit

[Whirlaway]

Empower individuals (consumers) to regulate business practices thru the courts. Big business doesn't fear federal regulators, but a son of a bitch attorney with a good case makes businesses shudder.

Downsize the regulatory mechanicims (staffing, laws, funding, etc) of the government and let citizen action be the mechanism.

It is a very libertarian, low cost, simple solution. And it empowers individuals and consumers.

[Old-T]

A good theory that rarely works in practice. The big business hire more and more expensive lawyers. They then file motion after motion delaying and stalling until the plaintiff runs out of money.

When that fails there are always witnesses to be bought.

The legal system can be bought just like anything else, and it happens every day.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Empower individuals (consumers) to regulate business practices thru the courts. Big business doesn't fear federal regulators, but a son of a bitch attorney with a good case makes businesses shudder.

Downsize the regulatory mechanicims (staffing, laws, funding, etc) of the government and let citizen action be the mechanism.

It is a very libertarian, low cost, simple solution. And it empowers individuals and consumers.

WTF do you think the court system is? Private Business?

The Courts are Government. The enforce laws written by.....all together now GOVERNMENT.

If Big Business controls government and thus the laws...who do you think will prevail in court?

What you silly Tea Nuts fail to understand is that the Capitalistic system lends itself to "To Big to Fail". The bigger you get the more political clout you have...why the fuck do you think we wind up with a Citizen United SC ruling? That is a Big Business win over private citizens. That is why we are in the mess we are. Once we have another Depression, then folks will remember why all those anti trust laws were put in place.

Justice Stevens had it right:

Fourth, Stevens attacked the majority's central argument: that the prohibition of spending guards free speech and allows the general public to receive all available information. Stevens argued, relying on Austin, that corporations "unfairly influence" the electoral process with vast sums of money that few individuals can match, which distorts the public debate. Because an average person in the real world can only receive so much information during a relevant election period, Stevens described "unfair corporate influence" as the ability to outspend others, to push others out of prime broadcasting spots and to dominate the "marketplace of ideas".[23] This process, he argued, puts disproportionate focus on this speech and gives the impression of widespread support regardless of actual support. Thus, this process marginalizes the speech of other individuals and groups.
Stevens referred to the majority's argument that "there is no such thing as too much speech" as "facile" and a "straw man" argument. He called it an incorrect statement of First Amendment law because the Court recognizes numerous exceptions to free speech, such as fighting words, obscenity restrictions, time, place and manner restrictions, etc. Throughout the dissent, Stevens argued that the majority's "slogan" ignored the possibility that too much speech from one source could "drown out" other points of view

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen...ion_Commission

[CuteOldGuy]

WTF and Wikipedia. An unbeatable combination. Must be right.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

WTF and Wikipedia. An unbeatable combination. Must be right.

The King of Straw men BS, does not discuss Justice Stevens quote but focuss on wiki!

Originally Posted by WTF

Stevens referred to the majority's argument that "there is no such thing as too much speech" as "facile" and a "straw man" argument. He called it an incorrect statement of First Amendment law because the Court recognizes numerous exceptions to free speech, such as fighting words, obscenity restrictions, time, place and manner restrictions, etc. Throughout the dissent, Stevens argued that the majority's "slogan" ignored the possibility that too much speech from one source could "drown out" other points of view

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Ele ction_Commission

[CuteOldGuy]

WTF, Justice Stevens was addressing the Citizens United case, which is not really germane to the discussion. However, I do agree with Stevens, and would like to see Citizens United overturned, and the same restrictions applied to unions.

I don't think that refusing to view corporations as "people" is government regulation of business. So the Stevens information was not relevant, ergo, it was a strawman.