Hey libs, why this fight on guns, not banking, HC, things that matter?

The Dems have made the banks even bigger! But yes i doubt it would be any different under the GOP either. The banksters run the show, the difference in the parties is little side issues to keep us distracted. It works a treat too.

 

Neither side doesn't seen that the institutions which were suppose to help prevent a Great Depression are exactly what the banks are getting rich off of.

Shout outs to glass steagall act FDIC.

 

Fair enough, but I will say that if you let commercial banking fail, it very well could have resulted in the total failure of the world economy, and a couple billion dead people that starved to death.

This is why I scream about Glass-Steagal all the time. The separation of investment and commercial banking is paramount to allowing the free market to correct itself..

 

Banks fail all of the time. I'm assuming you have a bank account. Do you care what the bank do with your money once you deposit it in a bank?

Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with the crisis. All of the big banks which were heavily leveraged in the Sub Prime market were pure investment banks which never touched the commercial side.

What is so confusing about this?

 

Yes, this is why I bank at a credit union, because i refuse to support murderer's!

Silly rabbit Trick's are for kids!

Glass-Steagal was the law that kept commercial and investment banking from merging into one company.

Citi-group announced the suspension of Glass-Steagal to enable the merger of Citi and Travelers, before Congress had even voted as they knew our President, Senate, and House were bought and paid for whore's!

This was the merger of investment and commercial banking.

This is why we really probably couldn't let the banks failed, as they had created a situation where a run on commercial banking would have taken place, which was the final domino that once gave us the great depression.

Modern conservative = All I care about is making money

 

Glass-Steagall certainly did help the too big to fail. But its both sides of politics, not just the US but most of the west. Funny how we have a GFC yet the big banks are bigger than ever while everyone else suffers.

The lefty Matt Damon narrated this excellent doco on it, its hard to come to any other conclusion than the banks run the show. Very interesting part about economic academics having board and govt positions, funny watching them squirm to the questions asked.

Inside Job. The documentary.
http://www.theotherschoolofeconomics.org/?p=2499

 

Oh their reactions are priceless.

The look of fear that is generated by some of the questions asked is awe inspiring!

 

So when was the last time you've looked at their balance sheet?

I would hardly call Citigroup a good example. They're nowhere near the highs they've been trading at before the crisis. Once the crash hit, their shares hit bottom and they haven't been up since. They weren't has heavily leveraged as all these other banks.

But consider all of these institutions: Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch. All of these companies, bankrupt. These three were at the heart of the crisis and they never set foot on the commercial side. The same with Goldman Sachs. AIG was an insurance company. Nothing to do with banking. New Century Financial was a real estate firm. No Glass Steagall there either. Majority of the merged banks that went under failed the old fashioned way. Citigroup was more or less immune because of the repeal of the Glass Steagall provisions.

During the Great Depression, 9,000 banks failed because consumers weren't allowed to diversify to hedge them from risk. Absent these regulations, they wouldn't be failing as often as they did.

Funny. I never hear any modern conservative say that.

 

All Credit Unions by law are non-profit institutions. They don't have investments.

Citi is the commercial bank, Traveler's was the investment bank.

Citing their investment sheets, is claiming that their accounting has integrity, which is absurd!

And Countrywide, Washington Mutual?

But why would a commercial bank fail, if it wasn't involved in betting on investment banking?

What risky behavior is it they could take that would result in the losses, that could produce a run on the banks?

You still listen to what people have to say?

I tend to watch their actions.

 

Who doesn't want to MAKE money? Whoever they are... They scare the living hell out of me.

 

Would you do it by laundering money for terrorists and drug cartels?

 

Not wanting to side rail the thread but i disagree with the modern conservative definition. I see myself as one and admitted its my job to make money as an investor but i believe we all have a better chance to succeed without the banks ripping is off and small/ med business has the best chance to flourish. Imo we're better off with smaller banks, more competition for lending (no too big to fail), we're better off with govt as small as possible (less tax, more competitive globally), better off without monopolies so small business can flourish creating more opportunities. Atm all we should really do is invest big banks, they play a game with rules most investors can only dream off, but what a boring way to make money.

 

Some credit unions make investments. They have all the same functions as normal banks. The only difference is that they aren't for profit so they charge lower rates and interests than normal banks.

Maybe but they're doing better than most banks right now.

WaMu got in trouble by making bad loans. They were never in the investment game. And Countrywide is a Real estate company.

Many banks were limited to one branch. They couldn't make investments to shield from losses and runs due to fractional reserve banking.

You watch them make money?

 

Don't be so naive. Did he go after guns after the Colorado shooting? Did he go after them after the Arizona shooting? What about the Fort Hood shooting? Or the Virginia Tech shooting?

No, instead he goes after guns mere months after he gets re-elected. How convenient. If he's got a conscience, it sure took him a hell of a long time to discover it.

Obama would never have done this if he still needed votes, as his previous 4 years of inactivity are clear proof of, and the Dems in Congress aren't facing reelection for 2 more years, so the Connecticut shooting couldn't have been better timed for them to try to deal with this. Hence, they are going after this with the kind of energy and fervor that I wish just half of which could be spent dealing with issues even larger and more important.

 

I would not define you as a modern conservative in the US if you fear all centralized power.

The modern conservative movement in the US only fears government centralized power, and will make every excuse possible for private centralized power.

This is the action that makes me believe modern conservative = All I want to do is make money.

Now if you fear all centralized power like myself, then I would call you a traditional conservative.

 

LMAO, I see you now!

So the problem after these banks took on too much risk, is that they weren't allowed to take on more risk with FED(tax payer) dollars, to try and get out of the trouble their over leveraging created in the first place!

**** with that non-sense!

 

Define "ten times harder"? I don't find "picking the battles you can win" over the "battles that you cannot win"............means that he doesn't have a pair. In fact, I call that brilliant!

 

How could you possibly know this is the case, and why would you assume it is?

 

So you can't define 10 times harder?
Why do you think I stated what I know..............as opposed to what I believe? Why are you confusing the two?

 

10 times harder = hyperbole

I am fine with this being an opinion of yours.

Now can you qualify why you would make this assumption?

 

I'm no lib, but I think the only reason Obama is even remotely working for some semblance of gun control, is because he smells blood in the water right now due to Sandy Hook.
He has always been for tighter gun control, if not an outright ban, and he's simply taking advantage of the moment and going for the juglar via the emotions of Americans.
He knows that waiting even a few months Americans will slowly lose the cutting edge of Sandy Hook, and he would more than likely get nowhere with gun control.

 

You don't think the GFC, or his initial wave election provided these same opportunities?

 

Not like the emotions of having six year old's mowed down.

 

I would think losing 40% of the money you earned in your life would be up there.

 

Obama has mowed down plenty of 6 year olds from afar with zit-faced drone pilots. I wonder if the Iran sanctions will kill as many as they did in Iraq....1 million...praised by Madeleine Albright as justifiable.