• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Let’s Applaud Elizabeth Warren And John McCain For Their Bank Bill

The idea that we have banks who are "too big to fail" is just a looming crisis waiting to happen all over again. I would completely support re-enacting Glass-Steagall with some modern adjustments. All of you people who call yourselves conservatives arguing against this because its "big government" need to be more pragmatic about this. A new modern Glass-Steagall would limit the risk to the financial system from investment banks over-leveraging themselves. We can let investment banks fail without shutting down the financial system if they are separate from retail banks and not "too big to fail". The idea that people making risky investments would be the ones that suffer the blowback from those risky investments failing sounds like a conservative idea to me.
 
vash1012 said:
The idea that we have banks who are "too big to fail" is just a looming crisis
waiting to happen all over again. I would completely support re-enacting Glass-Steagall with some modern adjustments. All of you people who call yourselves conservatives arguing against this because its "big government" need to be more pragmatic about this. A new modern Glass-Steagall would limit the risk to the financial system from investment banks over-leveraging themselves. We can let investment banks fail without shutting down the financial system if they are separate from retail banks and not "too big to fail". The idea that people making risky investments would be the ones that suffer the blowback from those risky investments failing sounds like a conservative idea to me.
Click to expand...

Lol....

The regulatory reforms put in place by Clinton on the GSEs in the 90s are to blame for the crisis.

Not the facts banks could over leverage their investments. In order for Franklin Raines to continue his massive ENRONesque adventure, Glass-Steagal had to go, which is why Clinton signed the bill to repeal it.

Until Politicians tell the truth about the Orginizations that exponentially over leveraged themselves, Fannnie Mae and Freddie Mac, they're not worth my time.
 
Anthony60 said:
Now come the condesending comments. More punk stuff, be mature... blah, blah, blah. You've got to be kidding. God, why do liberals always do this?
This woman gets up there and makes these asinine, offensive comments about people that built businesses, as if they didn't pay their dues but everyone else did. What is worse, people get behind her, mostly people that haven't produded a damn thing, and they want a piece of what they built as if they helped. What a joke.
Click to expand...

talk about blah, blah, blah (and your reading comprehension?) ... listen, you and your buddies go ahead with your wars against women, the poor, the working class, gays, blacks, Latinos, immigrants, etc. ... nothing would make me happier ... BTW, how did that 47% thing work for you guys? ... PAUL/CRUZ in 2016. That's a winning prescription (although, Paul and Cruz recently decided to team up with a liberal congresswoman to address sexual assault in the military in a meaningful way ... Are they out now?)
 
windowdressing said:
talk about blah, blah, blah (and your reading comprehension?) ... listen, you and your buddies go ahead with your wars against women, the poor, the working class, gays, blacks, Latinos, immigrants, etc. ... nothing would make me happier ... BTW, how did that 47% thing work for you guys? ... PAUL/CRUZ in 2016. That's a winning prescription (although, Paul and Cruz recently decided to team up with a liberal congresswoman to address sexual assault in the military in a meaningful way ... Are they out now?)
Click to expand...

What a surprise, no argument, just B.S.
 
I know, I know. But I'm not interested in getting pulled down to your level with the name calling. Now, it's fine if you call political figures names, like that facist Warren or Obama the big dummy. I'm okay with that.
 
Tigger said:
E

I'm categorically against an legislation that is contrary to the letter and spirit of the US Constitution as originally written with the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

I would certainly agree with that sentiment.

Do you consider GS to have been in that category? If so, why?
 
Tigger said:
Anything those two have their names on would be something I could not support. Neither one of them has a Conservative cell in their entire bodies. ...
Click to expand...

So if the upcoming "Reduction of Means Tested Welfare Act" or the "Income Tax Reduction act of 2014" had their names on it, you wouldn't support it?

I support or opposed legislation based upon the contents of it, and not the names on it.

Disclaimer: Unfortunately, both of the bills that I mentioned are fictional.
 
Tigger said:
I skimmed the bill real quick and it's exactly the sort of legislation I am against. The United States Congress does not have any legal/legitimate/Constitutional authority to tell banks (or any other private business) how to run their business. I would be in favor of a bill that states that the US Government will never again bail out any bank or lending/investment institution.
Click to expand...

I suppose you want FDIC repealed too so when the bankers gamble away all your money you will lose all your savings. The FDIC was part of the New Deal legislation too.
Not regulating banks will guarantee that they will be bailed out again and again. Why you can't see that is beyond me.
 
iguanaman said:
I suppose you want FDIC repealed too so when the bankers gamble away all your money you will lose all your savings. The FDIC was part of the New Deal legislation too.
Not regulating banks will guarantee that they will be bailed out again and again. Why you can't see that is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Repelling the FDIC would be awesome!! It would make depositors do some due diligence as to where they bank- with FDIC you can bank at the crummiest bank and you have no principal risk.
 
greyhat said:
Repelling the FDIC would be awesome!! It would make depositors do some due diligence as to where they bank- with FDIC you can bank at the crummiest bank and you have no principal risk.
Click to expand...

It is not possible for the average person to do the due diligence necessary on a large corporation. I would agree if buying it's stock, but there is a measure of public trust at play in depositing your money with a bank.
 
Occam's Razor said:
It is not possible for the average person to do the due diligence necessary on a large corporation. I would agree if buying it's stock, but there is a measure of public trust at play in depositing your money with a bank.
Click to expand...

They can, should and would if they had no blind trust; surely they could consult professional advisers on matters of finance.
 
greyhat said:
They can, should and would if they had no blind trust; surely they could consult professional advisers on matters of finance.
Click to expand...

Do you think everyone is educated and middle class? How about the slightly dotty granny? How about a functional yet "mentally challenged" person who has a job and only wants to save? How about the working poor?

Gimme a break. The FDIC is not a problem in our economy.
 
Occam's Razor said:
Do you think everyone is educated and middle class? How about the slightly dotty granny? How about a functional yet "mentally challenged" person who has a job and only wants to save? How about the working poor?

Gimme a break. The FDIC is not a problem in our economy.
Click to expand...

Where there is a need a solution will arise. You're right the FDIC isn't the problem, but it masks risks for depositors.
 
greyhat said:
Where there is a need a solution will arise. You're right the FDIC isn't the problem, but it masks risks for depositors.
Click to expand...

It's insurance. Does auto insurance mask the risks of driving?

Does health insurance mask the risks of eating bacon flavored everything... wait... bad example...

You get my point.
 
Occam's Razor said:
It's insurance. Does auto insurance mask the risks of driving?

Does health insurance mask the risks of eating bacon flavored everything... wait... bad example...

You get my point.
Click to expand...

Those are different; one deals with morbidity the other with a liability risk. The FDIC may be called insurance; however it is a guarantee of principal if a bank fails, in these cases, depositors forgo the need to do due diligence to ensure that their funds are being handled properly. Instead people don't care; if your principal was at risk would you have banked at WAMU?
 
greyhat said:
Those are different; one deals with morbidity the other with a liability risk. The FDIC may be called insurance; however it is a guarantee of principal if a bank fails, in these cases, depositors forgo the need to do due diligence to ensure that their funds are being handled properly. Instead people don't care; if your principal was at risk would you have banked at WAMU?
Click to expand...

I don't use banks. Due diligence has shown that not one of them operates ethically. But asking a layman to perform due diligence in a system that hides their inner workings and uses complex financial products is unreasonable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom