Tea Party Republicans Stand Mute on Wall Street Bailouts (Page 5): I've said it before, and I'll say it again! The fact that we choose up sides on this site, and throughout society in...

Richard Rowland

MarvinSussman wrote:

I will join the Tea Party if you can explain what Dodd-Frank does to protect banks, excluding riders inserted by Citigroup and/or its brother banks with the help of conservatives in Congress.

Citigroup wrote the legislation that YOUR Congress passed. Doesn't that tell you anything?

I dub thee "Bailout Dave".

I've said it before, and I'll say it again! The fact that we choose up sides on this site, and throughout society in general, and seem to give no quarter to those who share a different viewpoint, is exactly the environment that is required by those who Bamboozle: we the people. For it is when the crowd is distracted by the vehement discourse that seems to prevail today that allows the most mischief by our elected officials of both parties.

VladimirPee

Populism usually relies on class warfare. It was cleverly used by the Bolsheviks and Maoists and the Khmer Rouge and Fidel Castro and Adolph Hitler. Sometimes that broad appeal can be dangerous.

J Anthony wrote:

That's nice, but I wasn't referring to Warren, Marv was, my point is that not every single politician has been completely bought off by the Wall 4t/banker contingent, at least we hope not.
Populism is an actual term used to describe a broader, more common appeal. The word has been around for some time. Not too complicated.

VladimirPee

On the surface I am not thrilled with the changes made to the banking rules. We should not be insuring these risky investments but I would like to read some more on the details and reasoning behind the decision.

Ricko wrote:

nwtk2997-it seems like congress is not able to learn anything from past experience. Repeating the same mistake and expecting different results is known as stupidity. Congress allowing banks to play high risk games with taxpayer money is ludicrous. Do they not know what they are doing ? Good Luck America !!!

J Anthony Loc: Connecticut

DennisDee wrote:

Populism usually relies on class warfare. It was cleverly used by the Bolsheviks and Maoists and the Khmer Rouge and Fidel Castro and Adolph Hitler. Sometimes that broad appeal can be dangerous.

J Anthony Loc: Connecticut

DennisDee wrote:

Populism usually relies on class warfare. It was cleverly used by the Bolsheviks and Maoists and the Khmer Rouge and Fidel Castro and Adolph Hitler. Sometimes that broad appeal can be dangerous.

Yes, we here in America should know.

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

MarvinSussman wrote:

You can blame Republicans and Democrats and liberals and conservatives and TP, etc. But you can't blame progressives like Warren.

You can't blame progressives like Warren is you believe that regulators don't become corrupted by the very process of regulating - either by revolving doors or sloth

Ricko Loc: Florida

MarvinSussman wrote:

I will join the Tea Party if you can explain what Dodd-Frank does to protect banks, excluding riders inserted by Citigroup and/or its brother banks with the help of conservatives in Congress.

Citigroup wrote the legislation that YOUR Congress passed. Doesn't that tell you anything?

I dub thee "Bailout Dave".

Dave-believe what Marvin is alluding to is the the amendment allowing banks to play the swap/derivative game was introduced in the House by a republican and I believe his question was, "did any republican, whether tea party or not, v**e against the amendment per se" in the House ? We know several republicans (tea party) v**ed against the omnibus but are wondering if there was a v**e on the amendment itself to keep it out of the bill. Do you know ? Good Luck America !!!

VladimirPee

Actually the portion of the bill which Marvin objects to was written by a liberal Democrat in Connecticut and signed by a Liberal President. Sounds like a bipartisan mess to me

Ricko wrote:

Dave-believe what Marvin is alluding to is the the amendment allowing banks to play the swap/derivative game was introduced in the House by a republican and I believe his question was, "did any republican, whether tea party or not, v**e against the amendment per se" in the House ? We know several republicans (tea party) v**ed against the omnibus but are wondering if there was a v**e on the amendment itself to keep it out of the bill. Do you know ? Good Luck America !!!

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

DennisDee wrote:

Actually the portion of the bill which Marvin objects to was written by a liberal Democrat in Connecticut and signed by a Liberal President. Sounds like a bipartisan mess to me

You're right. They are all the same. I just wonder what they got in return for getting this through.

VladimirPee

It is a complicated issue I am still studying. On the surface it looks like a dumb idea to allow these investments to be included under FDIC umbrella protection but I am reading some interesting counter opinions. I am undecided on this right now

nwtk2007 wrote:

You're right. They are all the same. I just wonder what they got in return for getting this through.

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

Ricko wrote:

Dave-believe what Marvin is alluding to is the the amendment allowing banks to play the swap/derivative game was introduced in the House by a republican and I believe his question was, "did any republican, whether tea party or not, v**e against the amendment per se" in the House ? We know several republicans (tea party) v**ed against the omnibus but are wondering if there was a v**e on the amendment itself to keep it out of the bill. Do you know ? Good Luck America !!!

Sussman wants to ignore the key element of Dodd-Frank that establishes too big to fail as federal policy and guarantees those so designated as assured government bail outs - thereby giving the biggest banks an even greater competitive edge over smaller banks.
On that part of the so called omnibus bill, it was supported widely by both Democrats and established Republicans, the very forces tea party folks have been battling and have been slimed by. They spoke out against the bill for what they considered more important issues. To pretend for a second that the tea party movement is guilty of the crony capitalism so rampant in both parties is to try to pull a Gruber on folks -

MarvinSussman

DennisDee wrote:

Just exactly what is a populist message? Campaign... (show quote)

The link explains Warren's work as a bankruptcy lawyer. Everything she did was in good faith regardless of the failure in court. Learn how to read.