Author of another Wall Street Bailout- Sen. Yoder of Kansas?

1. 79

   Credence2posted 9 years ago

   I am on rampage this morning with both guns ablazin' against the Right!
   
   Please see the attached article and share your thoughts
   
   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/1 … lp00000592
   
   I will begin by telling the conservative, right leaning audience, that, yes, I saw the explanation by Citibank as to why the legislation being proposed to reinstate their coverage under the FDIC for 'risky investments' was appropriate. Well, I did not find their explanation particularly compelling.
   
   Senator Warren of Mass. (she is one to watch) made a firebrand speech condemning Citibank influence peddlers of having tentacles throughout the corridors of power in Washington akin to a malignant tumor. The plutocrats want to undue what was put in place to protect the taxpayer from a repeat of what happened with all the bailouts after the 2008 meltdown. The rightwinger wants to bring it all back down on us again, with this particular instigator, Sen Yoder, playing hide and go seek, when called to account for this by his constituents in this conservative state.
   
   The conservative principle is that I cannot afford to give impoverished youngsters an extra helping of vegetables in their school lunches, but I have enough money in the treasury to bail out these 'fat cats'. Absolutely deplorable.
   
   So rightwinger, conservative moderate, progressive, liberal or leftist firebrand, what say you?

   replyreport
   1. 76

      junkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Conservative Right Winged Austerity spouting hubpage forum Activist have ignored you for the last 12 hours. Credence, They can't justify what the Republicans chose to do from jump street. That 's the first thing out the box. They never tried to hide their alliance and support for the Uber Rich and their  disapproval of the 47%er's which 50% of them was doped to voting against their own self interest to align themselves  with other Anglo Saxon Protestants against The First Black President. Those 47%er's will reap what they sowed.

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Greetings, Junko. So that's it, I have been systematically ignored. I thought that is was something I said? The silence was deafening. Thank you for weighing in....
         
         That is my job, to catch the right with its britches down, and anyone else for that matter by letting them see, close up, the nature of their hypocrisy.
         
         With the right, being forced into the light of day is going to scare them and they will run like rabbits rather than try to defend the indefensible.
         
         The sheer magnitude of what is going on here dwarfs all the shootings we are inundated with in the press. With the right's support, everybody is distracted and misdirected while  the culprits raid the cookie jar.
         
         I challenge the right, their ideology and principles and am not afraid to stand on mine.
         
         Many of these folks that vote against their own interests cling to white privilege holding out hope that if this troublesome 47% of which they are a part disappear, they too could reach the ranks of Donald Trump and the 1%. Yeah, and I can jump to the moon on a pogo stick......

         replyreport
   2. 96

      wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      While I agree with the basic premise that banks should not be bailed out for low quality loans that fail, your post would have meant a lot more (to me) had it not been a general bashing of half the country.
      
      Statements like "You can give money to your causes, but I can't", while coupling it with the old, old "THE CHILDREN ARE STARVING" appeal kind of cancels out any good in the post.  IMHO.

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

         I am glad that you have an opinion and chose to weigh in. I don't think that I was bashing anyone, is it the 47% that Romney declared were moochers?
         Romney and the GOP bashed half of the country, I just wonder why in light of all that is going on that they(moochers) support the side that is against their economic self interest?
         
         Banks and finance special interests are more important than the  people on the street. That is part of the GOP/Conservative principle, is that incorrect?

         replyreport
         1. 96

            wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            "I am on rampage this morning with both guns ablazin' against the Right!"
            "I will begin by telling the conservative, right leaning audience..."
            "The plutocrats want to undue..."
            " The rightwinger wants to bring it all back down on us again..."
            "The conservative principle is that..." followed by nonsense and lies
            "Banks and finance special interests are more important than the  people on the street. That is part of the GOP/Conservative principle"
            
            I see all of these as an attack on conservatives in general, don't you?  Rather than an informative discussion of a specific item you degenerate into little more than a rant against general conservative issues, with emotionalism taking precedence over fact and reality.  Which is why I did not respond (plus I didn't see it ) - simple rants against a whole ideology are not generally my thing and when they are blown into something they are not, there is even less of a reason to say anything.

            replyreport
            1. 79

               Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

               The ideology is part of it...
               You tell me which group has been more outfront in support of what happened here? This one event is not an oddity from the general trend and attitude. Corporations are people?
               
               Cmon, we know where this coming from. While there are no absolutes, there is more truth than fiction her. All you have to do is look at the voting records of the members of congress and which side they come down on. It has nothing to do with emotions and rants but demonstrated platforms, declared ideology and voting records.
               
               General conservative issues are brought to specificity on a particular case in point. I am sorry that you see this as nothing more than a rant.

               replyreport
               1. 96

                  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  IMHO, the root of this whole thing is the giveaway ideology of the left, not the right.  It began before the recession when it was decided that everyone should own a home - a typical "leftist" ideology without bothering to figure out how it would be paid for and one that satisfied both parties.  The left with homes for everyone, the right with increased business.
                  
                  It has grown into what we see now, with congress still allowing poor loans and the banks wanting bailouts for them.  The concept of the nanny state, with government supporting everyone, now includes big business.  It has thus left the idealogy of either party behind (or is part of both ideologies) and become a matter of paying politicians to financially support a business - something both parties do with gusto as it produces campaign contributions and thus buys votes.
                  
                  The problem, then, isn't specific with either party - it is with the idea that big government should expand giveaway programs.  That this specific one was introduced by a conservative into a liberal ideology is not a reason to vilify all conservatives - it is a reason to vilify big government in general.

                  replyreport
                  1. 79

                     Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     The story as to how the housing crisis starts blames people who were not qualified for attempting to get a home for themselves. If the bank were to make it possible for me to own a home with creative financing and such, would I not go ahead and buy, who wouldn't? Banks are not in business to lose money, and in spite of what conservatives always parrot, they were not mandated to make these loans. For some sinister purpose the bank made these loans, knowing that there was little risk to themselves if there were a default. The bank is responsible for preventing unqualified people from receiving a loan, not the loan recipient.
                     
                     Obama started the beginning of his first term lowering the boom on the banks and the bailouts. I think for political reasons bucking with those on his left flank, he allowed this provision through rather than have another contentious situation where a budget was not going to be passed. I and Ms. Warren have never been satisfied that the role and offenses of the banking and finance sector have been properly addressed to prevent a repeat of the 2008 debacle.
                     
                     yes, both parties are involved, but the GOP do it more often, more brazenly than the Democrats. We cannot live without a government structure. Conservatives have problems with "big government". I say that government being corrupted with special interests almost writing the laws and wielding unjustified influence of our representatives is the real problem. Getting the 'big money influence peddling' out of government rather than the principle of Government itself, is the issue. Oddly enough, the conservatives have been the most resistant to campaign finance reform and reigning in these kinds of influences regarding how government operates.
                     
                     No, you are not being vilified, but there are reasons the two sides differ.It does not all amalgamate. It depends on which problems you find the most troubling...

                     replyreport
                     1. 96

                        wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        " If the bank were to make it possible for me to own a home with creative financing and such, would I not go ahead and buy, who wouldn't?"
                        
                        I wouldn't, particularly as the loan was predestined to fail.  No one with an ounce of pride or ethics would take a loan they knew they could not pay back.
                        
                        "...they were not mandated to make these loans."
                        
                        Baloney.  Banks were required to make a certain percentage of mortgages to those that could not afford them, and the percentage was raised beyond what the banks could cover.  Banks were culpable, too, as they bundled these known bad loans and sold them as good, but that doesn't change the root of the problem.
                        
                        "I say that government being corrupted with special interests almost writing the laws and wielding unjustified influence of our representatives is the real problem."
                        
                        But you are mistaken.  The real problem is a government that has decided to "share the wealth" whenever possible as it chains people to that government and thereby buys votes for the politicians that are doing the chaining.  Individual responsibility is fading fast and now we see self responsibility for even giant corporations going as well.  All to the government; government is becoming ever more responsible for cradle to grave support, whether of business or individuals.

                        replyreport
                        1. 79

                           Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           Who says that I am not qualified to pay the loan back, did the bank issue loans without determining the credit worthiness of the recipient? I can't take out a loan that I could not afford, but the bank said that I could afford it. Was that based upon anything?
                           
                           I offer this in evidence to make my point:
                           "The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA, P.L. 95-128, 91 Stat. 1147, title VIII of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1977, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to help meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.[1][2][3] Congress passed the Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining.[4][5]
                           
                           The Act instructs the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation (Section 802.) To enforce the statute, federal regulatory agencies examine banking institutions for CRA compliance, and take this information into consideration when approving applications for new bank branches or for mergers or acquisitions (Section 804.)[6]"
                           
                           If there was pressure on the banks, it was self created. CRA was put in place to prevent discrimination in lending patterns for poor and minority communities. Making loans to people that they know are unqualified after they have done the proper review accepting a loss in advance,  is irrational. They were to make these loans consistent with SAFE and SOUND operations. Lending to unqualified is neither safe nor sound and puts bank depositors and shareholders at risk. How does the federal government mandate that the bank make a loan contrary to safe and sound operation? Are the banks afraid that they will be caught engaged in redlining or discrimination that has nothing to do with the credit worthiness of the applicant? I have seen that before. So, they play along to keep the heat off.  They consider these loss leader loans as keeping the feds out of their affairs and as a cost of doing business. Could that have been it?
                           
                           Yes, this buying of votes is happening. I heard the right complaining about Obama offering inner city residents a free cell phone for their votes. The Congress would rather take the money from the fat cats then bother with the masses. It is much easier.
                           
                           Your perspective does not fall on deaf ears, though. What do we have to reverse the trend you speak of? Destroy medicare-medicaid, ACA, Social Security. It was interesting  when a poll was taken of conservatives/GOP adherents. They wanted Government services pulled back with the exception of Social Security, nanny government fine up to a certain point?

                           replyreport
                           1. 96

                              wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              I can only give you my opinion, which I fully recognize is barely a starting point.
                              
                              SS/medicare is an retirement program paid for by employees, for themselves.  It is not in any sense an entitlement paid for by others; instead the large majority of what funds are "invested" (plus a reasonable interest earnings) is taken for use elsewhere.
                              
                              Medicaid, SS disability, EIC, ACA; all are unearned entitlements.  This country can afford some and should, but it crossed any reasonable line a long time ago.  When half this country "needs" charity from the government in order to survive...well, I just don't believe it.  Recipients want it, yes, but do not always need it, while many that DO need it are refused.  Worse, those with a short term need are reduced to paupers before any help is received, furthering any agenda to force dependency onto them.
                              
                              I don't have any good answers except "no work, no food" and if you can't support your kids the government will raise them for you.  It must, of course, be tempered when real disability is encountered, but not everyone with a nose sniffle is disabled.

                              replyreport
                              1. 79

                                 Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 Your opinion is a good starting point. That was all I looking for. I believe that part of the 47% of the charity case are SS recipients. We both agree that they are not defined as that technically.
                                 
                                 There is so much abuse and waste in the programs, I think that they need not be the drain on the treasury if so many did apply for disability due to chronic hangnail syndrome. The question remains where is line drawn as to what is an overreach regarding government social programs? I acknowledge you can take a good thing too far.
                                 
                                 Many on the right has said that people get back much more than they contribute over a lifetime. But, I say that if their contributions were properly invested and the Government did not use it as a piggy bank, the program would be sound.
                                 
                                 Your opinion is appreciated, thanks for your participation.

                                 replyreport
2. 78

   cathylynn99posted 9 years ago

   SS disability (SSDI) is  a benefit of insurance the person paid for while working. SSI disability payments are unearned.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Cathy, thanks for that clarification, an important distinction where so many see the two as one in the same.

      replyreport