 |
|
| Browse | Ask | Answer | Search | Join/Login |
|
|
||||
|
The stealth regime
Who can forget that before passing Obamacare, Nancy Pelosi said they'd have to pass it before we could know what was in it. She's proving that to be the case more and more.
Today, Congress passed financial reform legislation and the "teary-eyed" guy who led the charge, Chris "Countrywide" Dodd said, "No one will know until this is actually in place how it works." Really?? Is that the best we can get from the Democrat regime is guesswork? I guess it does give them some form of plausible deniability when time to face the "Tyranny Of Constituency" as NPR puts it. Next, with virtually no debate and no chance for public review (again), the House passed the DISCLOSE Act to counter the Citizens United SCOTUS ruling on campaign finances. Ironic ain't it, passing a bill on transparency with almost no debate and no opportunity for that tyrannical constituency to review and comment? Of course they carved out nice exceptions for their union thug buddies. But wait, there's more. The Obama White House, whose chief occupant regularly spewed diatribes against lobbyists on the campaign trail and whose lobbyist rule doesn't apply to lobbyists, is seemingly avoiding disclosure rules by having lattes with lobbyists across the street instead of having them sign the WH visitor log.
Here at the Caribou on Pennsylvania Avenue, and a few other nearby coffee shops, White House officials have met hundreds of times over the last 18 months with prominent K Street lobbyists — members of the same industry that President Obama has derided for what he calls its “outsized influence” in the capital.
On the agenda over espressos and lattes, according to more than a dozen lobbyists and political operatives who have taken part in the sessions, have been front-burner issues like Wall Street regulation, health care rules, federal stimulus money, energy policy and climate control — and their impact on the lobbyists’ corporate clients. But because the discussions are not taking place at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, they are not subject to disclosure on the visitors’ log that the White House releases as part of its pledge to be the “most transparent presidential administration in history.” The off-site meetings, lobbyists say, reveal a disconnect between the Obama administration’s public rhetoric — with Mr. Obama himself frequently thrashing big industries’ “battalions” of lobbyists as enemies of reform — and the administration’s continuing, private dealings with them.
Attempts to put distance between the White House and lobbyists are not limited to meetings. Some lobbyists say that they routinely get e-mail messages from White House staff members’ personal accounts rather than from their official White House accounts, which can become subject to public review. Administration officials said there were some permissible exceptions to a federal law requiring staff members to use their official accounts and retain the correspondence.
P.S. And coming up, the FCC's attack on free speech as they attempt an end run around the Supreme Court and try to turn the internet into a public utility. You have been warned. |
||||
|
||||
|
"No one will know until this is actually in place how it works."
Next, with virtually no debate and no chance for public review (again), the House passed the DISCLOSE Act to counter the Citizens United SCOTUS ruling on campaign finances.
As far as the FCC goes ;unless they get international agreements to go along with a China and the thugs in Tehran model of regulating the net, I don't think they will get far. YouTube - Free My Land (IRAN) YouTube - Bella ciao, Iran |
||||
|
||||
|
Major components of the bill, including the derivatives provisions, were negotiated in the hallway of the Dirksen Senate Office Building as the clock neared midnight. At one point, after hearing of an offer from Senate Democrats, Rep. Melissa Bean (D. Ill.) exclaimed: “Are you flipping kidding me? Are you flipping kidding me?” …
“My guess is there are three unintended consequences on every page of this bill,” Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R. Texas) said of the nearly 2,000-page bill. Of course there was nothing done about Fannie and Freddie ;the 2 institutions most responsible for the housing market collapse.That can was kicked down the road. As for the rest ;Shara Tibken of the WSJ says you could drive a truck through the loop holes. Bank Stocks Up Premarket As Congress Reaches Fincl Reform Deal - WSJ.com
“The banks can get around this stuff,” Rochdale Securities analyst Bove said, adding they can raise prices on the products they sell, as well as create separate entities and move them offshore. “Banks are not going to suffer here.”
He added that bank stocks are likely to rally over the next couple of weeks as people turn more positive on the sector. “The industry has been subjected to 18 months of vilification by the press, Congress and everyone else, but that will now stop,” Bove said. “Not only will it stop, but now the government has to go out and support the industry because they said they fixed it.” Dodd is right .He doesn't know what will happen until he unleashes the Kraken . Risk is inherent in any financial transaction. Who assumes it is the question. With Fannie and Freddie the taxpayer assumes the risk. |
||||
|
||||
|
Hello: Yeah, politics suck. What I think is funny, though, is your idea of transparency... Yes, Obama DID mention that he was going to be transparent. To you, that means if he doesn't install cameras in the White House john, he's not being transparent. You guys are silly. excon |
||||
|
||||
 Originally Posted by tomder55
|
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by excon
|
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I don't disagree with you. Obama is NOT keeping his promises. I just think it's funny that you attack him for THIS piddly lie. You couldn't, of course, attack him for the same reasons I attack him for. That's because you're quite pleased with his adoption of the Bush/Cheney terrorism policies. It doesn't bother you that he LIED about that, does it? excon |
||||
|
||||
|
No ex, that's not it at all. I realize the reality of the office makes it difficult to keep certain promises. Seems some of us warned before you guys voted this inexperienced moron into office that he had no clue what he was getting himself into. I see that as naïveté more than I do a lie. His blather about transparency, same as the rest of the Democratic regime's blather about transparency and ethics since 2006, now THAT was a lie and I don't find it 'piddly.' You find it 'piddly' because you agree with the stuff they're forcing on us. |
||||
|
||||
|
The new way that the Obots are getting around the transparancy thingy is to not hold meetings with the K Street gang in the White House . As you recall the President releases the guest sign in log to the public to demonstrate that his will be the most transparent... yada yada . So rather than get their names associated with the folks the President says have “outsized influence” in Washington; the staffers meet the lobbyists across the street at the Caribou Coffee .
The off-site meetings, lobbyists say, reveal a disconnect between the Obama administration’s public rhetoric — with Mr. Obama himself frequently thrashing big industries’ “battalions” of lobbyists as enemies of reform — and the administration’s continuing, private dealings with them.
Rich Gold, a prominent Democratic lobbyist who has taken part in a number of meetings at Caribou Coffee, said that White House staff members “want to follow the president’s guidance of reducing the influence of special interests, and yet they have to do their job and have the best information available to them to make decisions.” Mr. Gold added that the administration’s policy of posting all White House visits, combined with pressure to not be seen as meeting too frequently with lobbyists, leave staff members “betwixt and between.” So if you want to rub elbows with the influential people in Washington DC , head on over to the Caribou and ask the barista for a 'depth charge' .(I guess the 3 martini lunch is history ) |
||||
|
||||
|
The national banks are already concocting a way to get around any regulation they don't like according to Simon Johnson (Ronald A. Kurtz Professor of Entrepreneurship at MIT Sloan School of Management and senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington, D.C). The new descriptive will not be "too big to fail " it will be "too interconnected to fail" . He describes Jamie Dimon's move to make JP Morgan a global institution.
The reason global megabanks will get bailouts in the future is simple – policymakers will fear the chaos that would ensue when competing bankruptcy claims swarm over a defaulted institution, much as happened for Lehman (e.g. in London) in September 2008.
Mr. Dimon and his colleagues – who include some top former global regulators – are also well aware that the G20 (and everyone else) will not make any serious push towards creating a cross-border resolution mechanism. The best way to signal to creditors that they will be protected in all potential future crises is to make JP Morgan bigger and more global. This will lower the funding costs for the organization and in turn make this global expansion more profitable when times are good – and when times are bad, there will be government support. As Charles Gasparino in the Daily Beast says
Without a clear statement that the government won't step in to bailout mindless risk taking, watch for it to return
|
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by tomder55
End of problem?? For who - THEM?? What about US? Don't we matter?? So, you guys have a DEATH wish, huh?? Kind of like a death panel? Here's the deal. The term, or idea behind "too big to fail", means that if an institution goes down, WE GO WITH IT!! That IS the definition of too big to fail... To simply TELL them to behave, and HOPE they do, doesn't seem like such a good idea. You think it is, huh? Dude! excon |
||||
|
||||
|
Too big to fail exists in the minds of the government operatives who populate the revolving door between government and industry . It is not real . They go down ,another bank or group of banks picks up the pieces and moves on. The real deal is that if they know they don't have that life-line ,they will modify their risk taking practices.(that is if government dictates doesn't force them to make them ) |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by tomder55
I don't know how you guys are deemed the party of business... Let me see if I can explain it to you... You're counting on banks making sure they never get too big to fail, because if they do, they WON'T be bailed out... But, that makes no sense on its face. The term TOO BIG TO FAIL, means that we absolutely WILL bail them out, no matter what we've told them, or we GO DOWN TOO... That's what too big to fail MEANS... I think they're going to KNOW it too... Now, if you're talking about damn big, or really, really big, but not TOO big to fail, I'd agree. excon |
||||
|
||||
|
What I don't get is someone who says that humans should not be regulated would then think that their behavior is so wreckless that it needs regulating . Where does this contradiction come from ? The same person who would argue that a human should assume the consequences of their own risk says that a business should be managed by a controlling central authority. What you are going to find when people get around to actually reading the new law is that buisnesses will as a result of the law act exactly as Simon Johnson predicts ;and consolidate and merge to better deal with the regulations .These regulations will stifle competition in the market ensuring that the surviving businesses will indeed grow to the level you fear. |
||||
|
||||
|
Hello again, tom: The conservative idea, that corporations will ALWAYS act in themselves interest, was debunked by one of it's original proponents - Alan Greenspan. He believed what you believe, until corporations proved him wrong. The troubles that BP brought upon itself also ought to relieve you of those notions. But, it doesn't. excon |
||||
Not your question?
Ask your question
View similar questions
| Question Tools | Search this Question |
Add your answer here.
Check out some similar questions!
How I lightened 3 shades [Skin Regime]
[ 53 Answers ]
I was requested by fellow members to detail my skin lightening routine, if you saw my photos, I have lightened considerably over about a 2.5 month time. https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/skin-lightening/mequinol-tretenoin-update-pics-427200.html Let me start by saying I use a lot of products,...
New regime 2?
[ 2 Answers ]
OK so I'm on the retin a and hq regime... But I'm going to buy more retin a in at a lower percentage maybe 0.5 to reduce the irritation/face loating/pain lol But I have also bought the f&w Serum Exclusive Whitenizer and f&w Gel Crème Exclusive Whitenizer I'm also using tea tree oil foaming...
New regime
[ 47 Answers ]
OK so I know your all having a go at weezing about the bio claire but they have a new product called bio claire maxi tone milk And it has different ingredients listed and it seems to be working diffeferntly The original made my skin raw and white but like it was really dry and thin and not nice ...
Your skin lightening regime
[ 8 Answers ]
Hey, guys! What is your current skin lightening regime? And what results do you want to achieve? What do you cleanse, treat and moisturise with? Whatever it is, post it to let us all know! ;) I am currently trying to achieve even toned skin. My current skin lightening regime:
View more questions Search
|
