<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/FKX3AwzMSXc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
1994
- Thread starter thoughtone
- Start date
Nobody seems to have viewed (and surely not comment upon) this video.
He reminds me of the senator speaking at the mob hearings from Godfather part II lol. He was defending mob bosses as honest Italians because he knew no one would take him seriously lol. In 1994 there was no way people could know how banking laws would affect them so he could afford to play the concerned citizen role while taking bank money. Now we see Al Sharp doing the same while host a show on cnbc lol. Selling out like a mutha, or Herman surging to the lead in polls when all he wants to do is sell books. It's a dirty game but don't hate the player.
Man, what fuck are you talking about?
What do you need explaining to you Thought.
Let's start at Sharpton.
Save your breath Nittie!
I guess you're upset because Paul didn't say it.
source: New York Times
G.O.P. Lawmakers Vote to Delay Derivatives Rules
Spencer Bachus, left, the Republican chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, and Barney Frank, the ranking Democrat, clashed during a debate on delaying derivatives rules.
A House panel approved a plan on Tuesday to delay several rules for the $600 trillion derivatives market, a leading player in the financial crisis.
The bill would freeze crucial regulations stemming from the Dodd-Frank Act until September 2012, more than two years after the law was enacted and 14 months after the rules were scheduled to take effect.
After a contentious debate, the Republican-controlled House Financial Services Committee approved the measure in a 30-to-24 vote, entirely along party lines. A version of the bill also passed the House Agriculture Committee this month.
The bill’s Republican sponsors contend that regulators are unnecessarily rushing dozens of new derivatives rules to meet July deadlines. The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in recent weeks acknowledged they would miss the deadlines, saying they would put the finishing touches on the rules by late 2011.
“There’s no need to rush to meet arbitrary deadlines,” said Representative Spencer Bachus, Republican of Alabama and chairman of the Financial Services Committee. He added that the bill was “needed to restore order to the Dodd-Frank derivatives rule-making process.”
Regulators have proposed dozens of new derivatives regulations over the last year under Dodd-Frank, including a plan that would require many derivatives contracts to be traded on regulated exchanges and run through clearinghouses, which act as a backstop in case one party defaults.
In the lead-up to the financial crisis, investors bought billions of dollars worth of derivative contracts as insurance on risky mortgage-backed securities. When the underlying mortgages soured, some companies that sold the contracts lacked the capital to honor their agreements.
The new bill, Democrats said, would prevent regulators from enforcing restrictions that were needed to prevent another crisis.
“It’s not a bill to give the regulators more time; it is a bill to prevent the regulators from acting,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the committee’s ranking Democrat and a main architect of the Dodd-Frank law. “I think that’s a great error.”
Despite the partisan wrangling, the bill is largely a symbolic gesture. Even if the entire House were to approve the measure, it would likely die in the Senate, which is controlled by Democrats.
Still, Democrats pushed back against the bill on Tuesday, hoping to deter future legislation.
Mr. Frank even secured several concessions from the bill’s Republican authors, including an amendment to start the rules in September 2012 rather than December, as Republicans originally planned. Republicans also agreed to exempt several crucial provisions from the delays, including the requirement that derivatives trades go through clearinghouses and a provision forcing banks to spin off their derivatives desks.
But the bill would still delay the start date for certain capital requirements and rules prohibiting banks from controlling clearinghouses.
Republicans said the delays were not aimed at gutting the law, but rather slowing down its implementation.
“It’s not repealing any rule, it’s just setting a more deliberative rule-making process,” Mr. Bachus said, adding that he had hoped the plan would draw bipartisan support.
Mr. Frank retorted: “If you want bipartisan support, don’t draft a bill by yourselves without consulting us.”
<!-- end .entry-content -->
G.O.P. Lawmakers Vote to Delay Derivatives Rules
Spencer Bachus, left, the Republican chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, and Barney Frank, the ranking Democrat, clashed during a debate on delaying derivatives rules.
A House panel approved a plan on Tuesday to delay several rules for the $600 trillion derivatives market, a leading player in the financial crisis.
The bill would freeze crucial regulations stemming from the Dodd-Frank Act until September 2012, more than two years after the law was enacted and 14 months after the rules were scheduled to take effect.
After a contentious debate, the Republican-controlled House Financial Services Committee approved the measure in a 30-to-24 vote, entirely along party lines. A version of the bill also passed the House Agriculture Committee this month.
The bill’s Republican sponsors contend that regulators are unnecessarily rushing dozens of new derivatives rules to meet July deadlines. The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in recent weeks acknowledged they would miss the deadlines, saying they would put the finishing touches on the rules by late 2011.
“There’s no need to rush to meet arbitrary deadlines,” said Representative Spencer Bachus, Republican of Alabama and chairman of the Financial Services Committee. He added that the bill was “needed to restore order to the Dodd-Frank derivatives rule-making process.”
Regulators have proposed dozens of new derivatives regulations over the last year under Dodd-Frank, including a plan that would require many derivatives contracts to be traded on regulated exchanges and run through clearinghouses, which act as a backstop in case one party defaults.
In the lead-up to the financial crisis, investors bought billions of dollars worth of derivative contracts as insurance on risky mortgage-backed securities. When the underlying mortgages soured, some companies that sold the contracts lacked the capital to honor their agreements.
The new bill, Democrats said, would prevent regulators from enforcing restrictions that were needed to prevent another crisis.
“It’s not a bill to give the regulators more time; it is a bill to prevent the regulators from acting,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the committee’s ranking Democrat and a main architect of the Dodd-Frank law. “I think that’s a great error.”
Despite the partisan wrangling, the bill is largely a symbolic gesture. Even if the entire House were to approve the measure, it would likely die in the Senate, which is controlled by Democrats.
Still, Democrats pushed back against the bill on Tuesday, hoping to deter future legislation.
Mr. Frank even secured several concessions from the bill’s Republican authors, including an amendment to start the rules in September 2012 rather than December, as Republicans originally planned. Republicans also agreed to exempt several crucial provisions from the delays, including the requirement that derivatives trades go through clearinghouses and a provision forcing banks to spin off their derivatives desks.
But the bill would still delay the start date for certain capital requirements and rules prohibiting banks from controlling clearinghouses.
Republicans said the delays were not aimed at gutting the law, but rather slowing down its implementation.
“It’s not repealing any rule, it’s just setting a more deliberative rule-making process,” Mr. Bachus said, adding that he had hoped the plan would draw bipartisan support.
Mr. Frank retorted: “If you want bipartisan support, don’t draft a bill by yourselves without consulting us.”
<!-- end .entry-content -->
Since the GOP won't police the banks, President Obama has to do it.
source: Crooks and Liars
President Obama Appoints Richard Cordray To Head CFPB Via Recess Appointment
Despite Republicans' best efforts to block the President from even making recess appointments by pretending they haven't adjourned for the holiday recess, President Obama appointed his nominee, Richard Cordray to head the CFPB. This is a key appointment, because without Cordray (or someone) at the helm, CFPB could not undertake the regulation of key industries like payday lending and other predatory lenders which are largely unregulated right now.
Predictably, Republicans whined and fumed, but the complaint that it's a departure from long-standing precedent is utter nonsense when Republicans are attempting to nullify legislation which was passed by Congress and signed into law by the President.
This is a major step forward for all of us, especially those of us who are at the mercy of the banks and other finance companies which run rampant with regularity. Elizabeth Warren has put together a congratulatory card for Cordray on her campaign website, signaling her approval of his recess appointment and advancement of the CFPB, which wouldn't exist if it were not for her pushing Congress to do it.
One of the best moments in his announcement speech was where he ridiculed Republicans for suggesting the 2008 financial meltdown was the result of overregulation and excessive oversight. The transcript is below:
source: Crooks and Liars
President Obama Appoints Richard Cordray To Head CFPB Via Recess Appointment
Despite Republicans' best efforts to block the President from even making recess appointments by pretending they haven't adjourned for the holiday recess, President Obama appointed his nominee, Richard Cordray to head the CFPB. This is a key appointment, because without Cordray (or someone) at the helm, CFPB could not undertake the regulation of key industries like payday lending and other predatory lenders which are largely unregulated right now.
Predictably, Republicans whined and fumed, but the complaint that it's a departure from long-standing precedent is utter nonsense when Republicans are attempting to nullify legislation which was passed by Congress and signed into law by the President.
This is a major step forward for all of us, especially those of us who are at the mercy of the banks and other finance companies which run rampant with regularity. Elizabeth Warren has put together a congratulatory card for Cordray on her campaign website, signaling her approval of his recess appointment and advancement of the CFPB, which wouldn't exist if it were not for her pushing Congress to do it.
One of the best moments in his announcement speech was where he ridiculed Republicans for suggesting the 2008 financial meltdown was the result of overregulation and excessive oversight. The transcript is below:
Today I’m appointing Richard as America’s consumer watchdog. That means he’ll be in charge of one thing: looking out for the best interests of American consumers. His job will be to protect families like yours from the abuses of the financial industry. His job will be to make sure you’ve got all the information you need to make important financial decisions. Right away, he’ll start working to make sure millions of Americans are treated fairly by mortgage brokers, payday lenders and debt collectors. In fact, just this week, his agency is opening up a simple, 1-800 number you can call to make sure you’re getting a fair deal on your mortgage, and hold banks and brokers accountable if you’re not.
I nominated Richard for this job last summer. And yet, for almost half a year, Republicans in the Senate have blocked his confirmation. They’ve refused to even give Richard and up-or-down vote. It’s not because he’s unqualified. There is no question that Richard is the right person for this job. He’s got support from Democrats and Republicans. A majority of Attorneys General from both parties across the country have called for Richard to be confirmed. Your local Members of Congress who are here today – they support him. He has the support of a majority in the Senate. Everyone agrees that he’s more than qualified.
The only reason Republicans in the Senate have blocked Richard is because they don’t agree with the law setting up the consumer watchdog. They want to weaken it. Well that makes no sense at all. Does anyone think the reason we got in such a financial mess was because of too much oversight? Of course not. We shouldn’t be weakening oversight and accountability. We should be strengthening it – especially when it comes to looking out for families like yours. Financial firms have armies of lobbyists in Washington looking out for their interests. It’s time someone fought for you, too.
I nominated Richard for this job last summer. And yet, for almost half a year, Republicans in the Senate have blocked his confirmation. They’ve refused to even give Richard and up-or-down vote. It’s not because he’s unqualified. There is no question that Richard is the right person for this job. He’s got support from Democrats and Republicans. A majority of Attorneys General from both parties across the country have called for Richard to be confirmed. Your local Members of Congress who are here today – they support him. He has the support of a majority in the Senate. Everyone agrees that he’s more than qualified.
The only reason Republicans in the Senate have blocked Richard is because they don’t agree with the law setting up the consumer watchdog. They want to weaken it. Well that makes no sense at all. Does anyone think the reason we got in such a financial mess was because of too much oversight? Of course not. We shouldn’t be weakening oversight and accountability. We should be strengthening it – especially when it comes to looking out for families like yours. Financial firms have armies of lobbyists in Washington looking out for their interests. It’s time someone fought for you, too.
Were was Ron Paul in 1994?
He wasn't in Congress.
Ron Paul is a clown, fringe politico.
'Gold Standard' would mean no American Empire, No 600+ military bases, No 12 U.S. Navy carrier battle groups, No "saftey-net" i.e. Women Infants & Children (WIC), SNAP (Food Stamps), Pell Grants (federal student loans & grants), No Medicare or Social Security etc. In other words America would become the America of of the 1870's; essentially a feudal society with no middle class.
'Gold Standard' would mean no American Empire, No 600+ military bases, No 12 U.S. Navy carrier battle groups, No "saftey-net" i.e. Women Infants & Children (WIC), SNAP (Food Stamps), Pell Grants (federal student loans & grants), No Medicare or Social Security etc. In other words America would become the America of of the 1870's; essentially a feudal society with no middle class.
Do you view stable money as a good thing?Ron Paul is a clown, fringe politico.
'Gold Standard' would mean no American Empire, No 600+ military bases, No 12 U.S. Navy carrier battle groups, No "saftey-net" i.e. Women Infants & Children (WIC), SNAP (Food Stamps), Pell Grants (federal student loans & grants), No Medicare or Social Security etc. In other words America would become the America of of the 1870's; essentially a feudal society with no middle class.
Define stable money?
What policing? Bernanke just announced QE-til infinity. Giving WallStreet $40 Billion A MONTH to buy MBS's. Talk about "reinflating a bubble"
What a joke.
Where's Occupy Wall Street?But then again, some would call this Hope & Change
Joke!
The American debt throughout our history.
Listen:
http://backstoryradio.org/?powerpress_pinw=2906-podcast
Ron Paul is a clown, fringe politico.
'Gold Standard' would mean no American Empire, No 600+ military bases, No 12 U.S. Navy carrier battle groups, No "saftey-net" i.e. Women Infants & Children (WIC), SNAP (Food Stamps), Pell Grants (federal student loans & grants), No Medicare or Social Security etc. In other words America would become the America of of the 1870's; essentially a feudal society with no middle class.
A picture is worth a thousand words.
source: Abraham Lincoln: The Prairie Years and the War Years pg. 271
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
Abraham Lincoln's First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861.
Money that doesn't have it's value change dramatically over time. A key feature of money is being a store of value. Nothing about modern money is stable. I'm not even talking about the amount of value. Just be predictable.
You think Lincoln's idea of labor is the same as your idea. Go look up how that term has changed over time.
So how do you define value today verses, 50, 100 or 150 years ago?
50 years ago, it took 3 days to receive a letter. Now it arrives instantaneously. 100 years ago it took at least 6 day to travel from New York to San Francisco. Now it take 6 hours.
I've done my research and brought the quote to you. You look it up.
The problem today is the measure of value is subjective. Money had not always had a subjective value. Which is why dollar fluctuates so much in the marketplace.
I doubt you've done any research whether the idea, of who's included in the term labor, has changed in 150 years.
There is no major national economic currency based on the gold standard. Most countries gave it up during the Great Depression because it was impossible for their economies to grow out of the depression. The last country to phase it out was Switzerland.
There is no significant inflation. The Gold Standard would only benefit those trying to talk up the price of gold, which those wanting and pushing for President Obama to fail are doing.
How's the price of gold now?
Ok, so forget the gold standard. After the Depression, without being exchangeable for gold, money was still linked directly to gold with Bretton Wood. $35 per ounce for decades. Money was stable.
I'm not pro-gold standard, but it's appeal to people is obvious. People want stable money and for all of written human history, except for the last 40 years, gold has been the means to achieve that. Bretton Wood showed that there is more than one way to achieve this.
Stable money is the point. The fact is stable money and a welfare state are completely incompatible. You can't have a fixed money supply and unlimited spending commitments. Thats the real reason we'll never go back to the gold standard, link to gold (i.e. Bretton Wood), or any stable currency. How do you commit trillions of dollars that doesn't exist? Simple you delink money from a stable value and make it up out of thin air. As much as you want.
Once again, your knowledge is on display!
Stop...You're killin me!
Is there a country on the Gold Standard? Who is call for returning to the Gold Standard? Are they Supply Siders?
I was beginning to feel comfortable in engaging you, but your reference to "Welfare State" speaks loads. Our debt's main problem is the runaway military budget. The single largest commit to out budget is the military. The military budget has grown 2X since 2000 and yet Lamaar thinks we should cut taxes. We use to pay for our debts.
We could have stable money. Cut the Pentagon budget 50% and raise taxes back to Clinton era rates. We would still have the largest military on earth, the millionaires and billion airs would still have more money than they could ever spend and the debt would begin coming down.
The Gold Standard is an excuse that the world tried and rejected.
You should listen to the link below. This the third time I posted it.
http://backstoryradio.org/?powerpress_pinw=2906-podcast
Is there a country that is not indebted?
I'm calling for competing currencies, meaning your free to conduct your transactions in FRN's, gold, silver, apples.......whatever. You will find the true value of your Federal Reserve Notes.
Every dollar in circulation has been "loaned" into existence, hence, Many refer to the dollar as an instrument of debt. Gold, however, is an instrument of wealth! That's why the founders said "only gold & silver should be recognized as legal tender". They understood how the bankers could enslave a population by using a "fiat" currency.
China, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, to name a few.
Did the founders have to contend with the petroleum economy?
Wake up this is not the 18th century. That's the intellectual problem.
Similar threads
