Check out some similar questions!

speechlesstx · Mar 27, 2013, 06:50 AM

Did anyone notice this or am I just behind?

Attorney General Eric Holder suggested Wednesday that some financial institutions have become too large and are escaping full-fledged prosecution as a result.

Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Holder told lawmakers that he is concerned that some institutions have become so massive and influential that bringing criminal charges against them could imperil the financial system and the broader economy. His remarks come as a growing number of lawmakers have suggested that big banks are, effectively, "too big to jail."

"I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy," he said. "And I think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large."

Read more: Holder: Big banks' size complicates prosecution efforts - The Hill's On The Money

Yep, that Dodd-Frank certainly solved the problem.

talaniman · Mar 27, 2013, 06:57 AM

Having a process to unravel the big banks and be able to check and see if they are obeying the rules is the problem? Dodd-Frank doesn't go far enough, nor is it enforced vigoriously enough.

tomder55 · Mar 27, 2013, 08:01 AM

Holder's term as AG will be defined by who he did not prosecute... what laws he won't defend. .

paraclete · Mar 27, 2013, 09:28 PM

Guess the man knows a bad law when he sees one

excon · Mar 28, 2013, 05:23 AM

Hello Mr. Magnanimous right winger:

Holder's term as AG will be defined by who he did not prosecute... what laws he won't defend. .

Let's pretend, for a moment, that the situation was reversed. Bill Clinton got gay marriage through, but it got challenged. Now, George W. Bush is put in the position of DEFENDING gay marriage, and you're telling me, that he WOULD??

Who, in the real, world BELIEVES that?

Excon

tomder55 · Mar 28, 2013, 05:33 AM

Show me the example when a case went to SCOTUS and a representative of the government didn't defend a constitutional challenge to a law. Maybe there are some I'm not aware of ;but I think this is an administration of firsts .All these standing questions the last 2 days are the result of someone other than the governments involved being the proponent of the law.

talaniman · Mar 28, 2013, 05:59 AM

So whether it's a good law, or a bad law, the government should defend it? What's wrong with changing a bad law?

Sodomy, and interracial marriage come to mind of bad laws that had to be reversed. Renewing regulations for big banks and stripping away layers of accountability and culpability is a HUGE challenge with HUGE opposition and TREMENDOUS risks. Bonehead, an agent of government (the house) has authorized a million bucks to defend DOMA even if the president is against it.

You may not like all the "hope and change" but the debates are getting much hotter, and that in itself will bring changes.

tomder55 · Mar 28, 2013, 06:09 AM

What's wrong with changing a bad law?

Indeed ;a bad law should be changed ;by the legislative branch. What you want is for SCOTUS to act like the legislative branch.

Sodomy, and interracial marriage come to mind of bad laws that had to be reversed.

Interracial marriage was real discrimination. Changing the definition of marriage to satisy another special interest is a completely different issue.

Bonehead, an agent of government (the house) has authorized a million bucks to defend DOMA even if the president is against it.

and thus the questions of standing by the justices

talaniman · Mar 28, 2013, 06:39 AM

Quote:
What's wrong with changing a bad law?

indeed ;a bad law should be changed ;by the legislative branch. What you want is for SCOTUS to act like the legislative branch.

Naw, they don't make law, they can only rule its constitutionality of the law.

Quote:
Sodomy, and interracial marriage come to mind of bad laws that had to be reversed.

interracial marriage was real discrimination. Changing the definition of marriage to satisy another special interest is a completely different issue.

No again, it was the legislature that tried to narrow the definition of marriage to EXCLUDE a segment of citizens (gays), as pushed by a special interest group, the church.

Quote:
Bonehead, an agent of government (the house) has authorized a million bucks to defend DOMA even if the president is against it.

and thus the questions of standing by the justices

Can't wait for the final ruling in June/July. A narrow ruling on Prop 8, and DOMA struck down, is my take. They could also punt on Prop 8, and let the ruling in a lower court stand.

speechlesstx · Mar 28, 2013, 06:57 AM

I don't know that sodomy laws are so bad, if we're going to regulate things like sodas, cigarettes and the like because of the health consequences and the COST to the rest of us why not sex? You know how much HIV drugs cost? Epzicom is like $25 a pill... and you're paying for it.

tomder55 · Mar 28, 2013, 07:36 AM

Steve ,you don't get it .Gays are a privilaged group and their behavior is subsidized . Other behaviors, like individuals who over eat, are making life style choices that will get penalized . Maybe the obese can convince the death panel that they were born that way.

excon · Mar 28, 2013, 07:52 AM

Hello again, tom:

Maybe the obese can convince the death panel that they were born that way.

You'd have a little credibility IF you can tell me that you chose heterosexuality. Of course, you can't, but that won't make a difference.. You won't let REAL LIFE experience interfere with what your church is telling you...

I am SOOO glad that I can think for myself..

Excon

tomder55 · Mar 28, 2013, 08:04 AM

I got science on my side. Obamacare and nanny bloomy discriminate against people who can't help it.. They were born this way .
The obese can

talaniman · Mar 28, 2013, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I don't know that sodomy laws are so bad, if we're going to regulate things like sodas, cigarettes and the like because of the health consequences and the COST to the rest of us why not sex? You know how much HIV drugs cost? Epzicom is like $25 a pill...and you're paying for it.

HIV is not just a result of sodomy, sharing needles, and consorting with prostitutes, or being transfused with contaminated blood were higher risk factors. And somebody is paying for your viagra and penis pump too!

Originally Posted by tomder55

Steve ,you don't get it .Gays are a privilaged group and their behavior is subsidized . Other behaviors, like individuals who over eat, are making life style choices that will get penalized . Maybe the obese can convince the death panel that they were born that way.

How are gays privileged? How are they subidized? Why should obese people be penalized, and who will penalize them?

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

You'd have a little credibility IF you can tell me that you chose heterosexuality. Of course, you can't, but that won't make a difference.. You won't let REAL LIFE experience interfere with what your church is telling you...

I am SOOO glad that I can think for myself..

excon

That's the problem ex, they are shrinking, and independent thinking is growing. We should have made them inhale sothey could expand their thinking if even for an hour.

EUREKA! I have found a cure for right wing uptightness... Two hits and call me in an hour!!

speechlesstx · Mar 28, 2013, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by talaniman

HIV is not just a result of sodomy, sharing needles, and consorting with prostitutes, or being transfused with contaminated blood were higher risk factors. And somebody is paying for your viagra and penis pump too!

Well then, all risky behaviors that need to be banned. Seriously, how do you decide which behaviors are acceptable and which aren't? You can't just ban MY favorite.

tomder55 · Mar 28, 2013, 09:47 AM

How are gays privileged? How are they subidized? Why should obese people be penalized, and who will penalize them?

Will they be penalized for their risky lifestyle ? The Obese will. Doctors are required to take weight ,BMI ,blood sugar tests ;and based on those results ,the government will make treatment decisions for them (or deny treatment ) . Will gays be denied care ? No ,they will get free condoms .We will pay for their risky behavior ,and they will not be told to pay a premium for their insurance like the obese or smokers will.

talaniman · Mar 28, 2013, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Well then, all risky behaviors that need to be banned. Seriously, how do you decide which behaviors are acceptable and which aren't? You can't just ban MY favorite.

SO, you assume ALL gays indulge in risky behavior? I respectfully disagree and submit that heteterosexuals engage in risky behavior just as much. Maybe on average MORE.

Originally Posted by tomder55

Will they be penalized for their risky lifestyle ? The Obese will. Doctors are required to take weight ,BMI ,blood sugar tests ;and based on those results ,the government will make treatment decisions for them (or deny treatment ) . Will gays be denied care ? No ,they will get free condoms .We will pay for their risky behavior ,and they will not be told to pay a premium for their insurance like the obese or smokers will.

Or drinkers? But insurance companies have always discriminated on the basis of what you call risky behavior in the first place. What you think being gay will let them off the hook off paying more money for premiums? Your premiums will go up regardless of your behavior. More if they can put a label on it.

If insurance companies can charge you more for NO reason, then surely they will find a reason to charge you more for anything they can come up with, including risky behavior, gay, straight, or just plain YOUNG, or old.

tomder55 · Mar 28, 2013, 10:28 AM

Your premiums will go up regardless of your behavior

Of that I'm certain ;but that was the design of Obamacare in the first place... destroy the private insurance system ,and replace it with a European takeover of all health services by the state . The left is counting on this to collapse the whole thing .

speechlesstx · Mar 28, 2013, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by talaniman

SO, you assume ALL gays indulge in risky behavior? I respectfully disagree and submit that heteterosexuals engage in risky behavior just as much. Maybe on average MORE.

I'd like to respectfully point out I didn't associate any behavior to gays, period. I only spoke of risky behaviors. Stick to the point, which other risky behaviors are you going to ban and crack down on due to their risk factors and associated cost to health care? Skiing? Skydiving? Unprotected sex? Recreational drug use? Driving? What and why, why should smokers be punished for their risk factors and not the congressman buying prostitutes?

talaniman · Mar 28, 2013, 11:22 AM

I totally reject the whole concept of risky behavior by any group. I think premiums should be capped and only congress can approve of them being raised. And they better have the financial reports to backup any claims for higher premiums.

It the insurance companies exploiting individuals, and groups that started this crap in the first place.

Was that clear enough?