[Bull]

Yeah I know, Bill Maher is a leftist hollywood liberal douche bag. Him and peta can go off in a quite room together and go fuk themselves. But listen to what Dan Rather has to say about News organizations and the corporations that run them. You can skip ahead to about 3:30 ...



If you really don't want to watch this I'll lay it out as Dan said it.

Dan: In the 50's and into the early 60's we had as many as 50 media outlets separately owned that could be said to have true national distribution or something close to it. After that it began to go down. The point is whether you're a conservative or a liberal or a progressive, a democrat or republican, everybody can be and should be concerned about this ... The constant consolidation of media, particularly national distribution media, with a few companies; no more than 6, my count is 4, now control more than 80% of the true national distribution of news.

Now, these large corporations, they have things they need from the power structure in Washington, whether it's republican or democrat. And of course the powers in Washington have things they want the news to report. - (he got tongue tied here, but this is what he meant)

To put it bluntly, very big business is in bed with very big government in Washington, and has more to do with what the average person sees, hears, and reads than most people know.

--------------------------------------------

That's precisely why I don't trust FOX, MSNBC, CNN, newspapers or magazines, or any other form of media. I'm reluctant to even trust the gov't websites either. I try to listen to everything I hear from the media with blinders on and just focus on the facts but everybody's human and sometimes I get caught up in someone else's opinion just like everybody else.

I tuned into Fox news the other day and I can't remember who's program it was but there were 4 people discussing Obama's recent immigration action. I did recognize Tucker Carlson but I couldn't tell you who the other 3 were. Well they were all pissed, ranting about how he's just pandering to his base with this, he's trying to steal votes, his actions were borderline racist ... and while I do agree that this looked like just a political move to boost his campaign, the hate that was coming from these people was just shocking. They then turned to the topic of the reporter that interrupted Obama during his speech in the White House rose garden. I think one of these guys was a moderate republican. He said something about how that's just disrespectful to the president and the rest of them jumped on him. He couldn't even get one word out for the rest of the broadcast. They said something about how Reagan got treated the same way a few times ..I don't know, it's hard to follow 4 people when they're all yelling over each other to get their points across.

Ok, THEN I flipped it over to MSNBC. There was an older guy that kind of resembled Lou Dobbs .. think his first name was Chris ... I don't know. Anyway, he was talking about the President's speech but instead of talking about what Obama said all he was focused on was the reporter that interrupted him. Said something about how because Obama's a black man he gets less respect from the right, he sited examples like the guy that shouted "You Lie" during his address to Congress .. Then he started talking about Romney and how he kind of dodged this issue when asked if he was elected would he leave this in place while he made more long term policies. He talked about how Romney's painted himself in a corner during the primaries, supporting tax cuts for the rich, against gay marriage, against abortion, etc .. I watched about 5 more minutes of it and turned it off.

All CNN was talking about was some retarded musical or something .. didn't watch it very long either.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I think this should be one of the major issues these two candidates should be addressing instead of birth control, gay marriage, abortion, etc. Those issues, I think, should be handled state to state. That's one of the thing's I agree with the left about. Federal gov't is too big. Let the states individually decide for themselves on these issues. If Gary and Frank want to get married they have to go to Maryland and if they want to be able to claim a joint tax return they have to live in that state. If voters from say Georgia want to outlaw flag burning, then fine .. you burn a flag in Georgia you go to jail. They do this stuff with things like Alcohol (dry counties), casino gambling, firearm ownership, etc. Just my opinion.

[KALKAM]

I watch him...he's honest about what he thinks and actually has guests on that don't agree with him...even friends with them.

I gave up on news a long time ago. It was back in the day, the 80's, when things I witnessed or was involved in became news stories.

A couple of friends were jumped by a street gang. One of my friends was a black belt and made short work of the first attacker. The ring leader of the gang said something to the effect of "karate doesn't help against bullets...want to get your head blown off?".

My friend turned his back and loaded his gun...at the same time my other friend had a stickball bat broken over his head and then a gun placed at his temple.

My friend turned back and put one shot in both the ringleader's shoulders and legs.

News reported the poor kid had a "heart of gold"...showed a picture of him when he was like 8 (trayvon style)....

Story just disappeared when it came out what a degenerate the kid actually was...how many arrests he had for attacking anyone, including the elderly!

A more well known story was the shooting of Yusef Hawkings in Bensonhurst....it made Sharpton "Legitimate" too, prior to that he was a joke due the Tawana Brawley mess.

Long story short....it was nothing like how it was reported...not even close.


I learned how it works...even know how public teachers push bullshit.


My problem is this though, FOX is the only one that everyone jumped on. It was happening for decades before the came around. Even universities are the same way...

I learned the "sound bite liners" from Chuck Schumer....he is a family friend and I interned for him when he was a congressman. Smart guy, knew how the game is played and he plays it well.

Fun Fact-he regards W as the best president of the last 5!

Best news network was C-Span....now I prefer surfing the net.

[Bull]

[arnnatz]

I think this should be one of the major issues these two candidates should be addressing instead of birth control, gay marriage, abortion, etc. Those issues, I think, should be handled state to state. That's one of the thing's I agree with the left about. Federal gov't is too big.

I think you meant that you agree with the right not the left. The left seems, in my opinion, to be all about growing federal government and usurping the powers of the states. Arizona comes to mind right off the bat - whether you agree with the immigration law they passed or not, they have a right to protect themselves since the feds won't enforce the laws.

[Bull]

I think you meant that you agree with the right not the left.

you are correct, I meant the right.

[Bull]

[KALKAM]

HAHAHA....

Trial lawyers are in the same boat with public unions to me. They both are really good at driving up the cost of things.

Next up, the trial lawyers unionize!

[Bull]

After the Great Depression the govt wanted to take steps to insure that something like it would never happen again. In 1933 Congress passed the Banking Act often referred to as the Glass-Steagall act after Senator Carter Glass and Congressman Henry Steagall.


The creation of FDIC and federal deposit insurance

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is an independent agency that provides deposit insurance, which guarantees the safety of deposits in member banks, up to $250,000 per depositor per bank as of January 2012. As of November 18, 2010, the FDIC insured deposits at 7,723 institutions. The FDIC also examines and supervises certain financial institutions for safety and soundness, performs certain consumer-protection functions, and manages banks in receiverships (failed banks). The FDIC receives no Congressional appropriations – it is funded by premiums that banks and thrift institutions pay for deposit insurance coverage and from earnings on investments in U.S. Treasury securities. Since the start of FDIC insurance on January 1, 1934, no depositor has lost any insured funds as a result of a failure.

The Board of Directors of the FDIC is the governing body of the FDIC. The board is composed of five members, three appointed by the president of the United States with the consent of the United States Senate and two ex officio members. The three appointed members each serve six year terms. No more than three members of the board may be of the same political affiliation. The president, with the consent of the Senate, also designates one of the appointed members as chairman of the board, to serve a five-year term, and one of the appointed members as vice chairman of the board, to also serve a five-year term.

The separation of Commercial and Investment banking

Federal Reserve member banks were prohibited from purchasing securities for their own account. But a national bank (chartered by the Comptroller of the Currency) may purchase and hold investment securities (defined as bonds, notes, or debentures regarded by the Comptroller as investment securities) up to 10% of its capital and surplus. This bill also forbid deposit-taking institutions from both accepting deposits and engaging in the business of 'issuing, underwriting, selling, or distributing, at wholesale or retail, or through syndicate participation, stock, bonds, debentures, notes or other securities', with some important exceptions. These exceptions include U.S. Government obligations, obligations issued by government agencies, college and university dormitory bonds, and the general obligations of states and political subdivisions. Municipal revenue bonds (other than those used to finance higher education and teaching hospitals), which are now of greater importance than general obligations, are not included in the exceptions, in spite of the attempts of commercial banks to have Congress amend the Act. In 1985, however, the Federal Reserve Board decided that commercial banks could act as advisers and agents in the private placement of commercial paper.

Provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act were directed at these abuses:

1. Banks were investing their own assets in securities with consequent risk to commercial and savings deposits. The concern of Congress to block this practice is clearly stated in the report of the Senate Banking and Currency Committee on an immediate forerunner of the Glass-Steagall Act.

2. Unsound loans were made in order to shore up the price of securities or the financial position of companies in which a bank had invested its own assets.

3. A commercial bank's financial interest in the ownership, price, or distribution of securities inevitably tempted bank officials to press their banking customers into investing in securities which the bank itself was under pressure to sell because of its own pecuniary stake in the transaction.

Erecting a sort of "firewall" between these two types of banking institutions insured that Wall street could totally collapse and the commercial banks would not be effected. What followed was the largest sustained period of economic growth in U.S. history. 60 years of expansion of the middle class resulting in the largest increase in productivity which in turn resulted in the largest increase in median income ... in U.S. history.

To Be Continued ....

[Bull]

An Autopsy of the Glass-Steagall Act

If the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1934 is the reason that we got into this financial mess, then the path to destruction began long before the intermingling of banks, brokerages, and insurances companies with the passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. Republicans have justifiably accused the Democrats of the fall of the financial systems by allowing Democrat supported regulators to not do their respective jobs of regulating. Not to be outdone, the Democrats have accused the Republicans for the demise of the banking system through the effort to de-regulate. And in fact, this charge by the Democrats is also true. Acting in a bipartisan manner, the Democrats and Republicans have unanimously undermined the very system that they earlier created.

Now that we’re clear as to who is responsible for our current malaise, let’s look at the other parties that are vital to the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. First and foremost is the Federal Reserve. Once the politicians set the ball in motion the Fed picked it up and started running. The Fed’s stance on the matter was, “if anyone is gonna change things it might as well be in our favor.” To preempt any discussion of the matter, the Federal Reserve drew up its own vision of the way things should be. But there were those who didn’t quit agree with this vision.

Along comes the FDIC with an alternate view of the way things should work. The FDIC says, “Why should the Fed write the rules but we have to insure the failures without any input?” This eventually turned into a turf war between regulatory agencies. The question wasn’t about the sensibility of repealing the Glass-Steagall Act, instead the debate was about who was going to get the biggest piece of the regulatory pie.

Recognizing that the only debate regarding repealing Glass-Steagall was who gets the most regulatory power, the insurance, brokerage and banking industries decided to take action. Nothing puts the nail in the coffin more than ignoring the current law in anticipation of the expected change. The string of mergers that followed the Swiss Bank and Dillon, Read and Co. partnership in May of 1997 ensured that Glass-Steagall was effectively repealed.

Finally, the last participant in this process was the American public. The public lacked the understanding, or concern, that the repeal of such a law was holding back the flood that would eventually push our economy to the brink. Advocacy groups who routinely rail against the banks and the Federal Reserve had lost, in the eyes of the public, the credibility necessary to demonstrate why this time, as opposed to all the other times, things were different and we as the public needed to debate the issue of the repeal of Glass-Steagall Act.

Glass-Steagall is officially a relic of a bygone era. It seems that our politicians, both Democrat and Republican, will now have to create a new regulatory framework that will ensure their own viability as a going concern. All that is left is the turf war over who gets the 1% majority to run Congress and the White House. To bad the duopoly in government has a death grip on any and all competing ideas.

------------------------------

Timeline/Sources:
July 1983, Treasury Secretary presents to the President the proposed bank industry deregulation that includes “both bank and thrift holding companies to engage in a wide range of securities, insurance, and other financial activities.” Rosenstein, Jay. "Reagan hears Treasury's dereg plan; growing opposition causes delay action." American Banker (July 8, 1983)

July 11, 1983, President sends to Congress the Financial Institutions Deregulation Act. “Deregulation bill is sent to Congress: proposal would expand bank, thrift activities." American Banker (July 11, 1983)

January 17, 1984, Treasury Secretary feels that competitors to the banking industry are "…chipping away at [the system]. If that continues and banks aren't given the identical opportunities to other financial services companies, the banking system's base will simply erode and could collapse.” Ringer, Richard. "Regan says Bush panel to finish report this week. (Donald T. Regan; George Bush)." American Banker (Jan 17, 1984)

In February 1985, acting general counsel Margery Waxman “recommends that Treasury Secretary James Baker add provisions empowering banks to underwrite mutual funds, and to allow bank holding companies to own securities brokerage houses, items missing from last year's [1984] Senate bill.” Naylor, Bartlett. "Will Baker, former bank attorney, fight hard for new banking laws?." American Banker (June 3, 1985)

November 5, 1985, “George Gould, nominated to be Treasury undersecretary for domestic finance, seeks additional powers for banks to underwrite commercial paper and mutual funds.” Naylor, Bartlett. "Treasury to limit new bank powers quest, nominee says." American Banker (Nov 8, 1985)

“Banking lawyer Peter Wallison, former general counsel at the Treasury Dept, is promoting the same ideas for bank reform he touted in the early days of the Reagan administration. Wallison believes that restrictions on capital should be relaxed and banks allowed to diversify into markets more lucrative than loans. He says Congress is too focused on capital and has weakened good deregulation legislation promoted by the Bush Administration.”Cummins, Claudia. "Former Reagan official still fighting for banks." American Banker (August 14, 1992)

“Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan testified recently in favor of repealing the provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act that prohibit affiliations between investment banking firms and member banks.” Isaac, William M. "Fed plan for securities powers isn't prudence but turf war. " American Banker. (March 9, 1995)

The proposal to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act was submitted to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The FDIC said that it was in favor of repealing the provision that prohibited banks from affiliating with investment banks. Isaac, William M. "Fed plan for securities powers isn't prudence but turf war. " American Banker. (March 9, 1995)

May 15, 1997, Swiss Bank Corp. announces that it will buy investment bank Dillon, Read and Co. Ring, Niamh. "Swiss bank to acquire Dillon Read; fate of municipal division is unclear." The Bond Buyer (May 16, 1997)

June 9, 1997, BankAmerica acquires investment bank Robertson Stephens. Treaster, Joseph B. "BankAmerica to Buy Robertson, Stephens Investment Company." The New York Times (June 9, 1997)

July 7, 1997, NationsBank acquired investment bank Montgomery Securities. Haber, Carol. "Montgomery goes to NationsBank in rich and risky deal, some say." Electronic News (1991) 43.n2175 (July 7, 1997)

November 15, 1999, President repeals Glass-Steagall Act by signing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. Iowa Republican Jim Leach “hailed the successful bipartisan effort after decades of failure.” Anason, Dean. "Clinton Enacts Glass-Steagall Repeal." American Banker 164.219 (Nov 15, 1999)

Source - http://seekingalpha.com/article/128645-an-autopsy-of-the-glass-steagall-act
---------------------------------------------------

[Bull]

F*ck the 1%. After reading about this stuff for weeks now I've come to the conclusion that I support the Occupy Wall Street movement. This culture of deregulation of the financial sector has directly resulted in the near crash of the stock market, the many bank failings, the bailouts of private businesses that should not have been effected by stock market flux, the housing market's decimation ... you get the gist.

And this is not political. Not even close. The politicians want you to think it's political and the opposing party is to blame but the truth is they are both at fault. Politicians on the federal level are part of the 1%.


Four Reasonable and Pragmatic OWS Demands

1. REINSTATE GLASS STEAGALL

2. AUDIT THE FED

3. Reverse CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION BY AMENDMENT

4. OVER HAUL TAX CODE THAT SERVES ONLY THE TOP 1%

Does any of those sound like a Republican or Democratic political agenda to you? Do they sound like Nazi agendas? Socialist agendas? Communist?

"Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day."

-Theodore Roosevelt, April 19, 1906

Sounds like Teddy would be routing for the OWS movement.

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country; corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in High Places will follow, and the Money Power of the Country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the People, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war."

-Abraham Lincoln, 1864

Honest Abe too. In fact, wasn't this sort of financial lopsidedness the root cause of the Civil War? (rhetorical question)

We're not a democracy. It's a terrible misunderstanding and a slander to the idea of democracy to call us that. In reality, we're a plutocracy: a government by the wealthy"

-Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General

Little bit harsh, especially coming from the lawyer who participated in the legal defense of people like Charles Taylor, Slobodan Milošević and Saddam Hussein. But I've got to admit I do somewhat agree.

"Dynastic wealth, the enemy of a meritocracy, is on the rise. Equality of opportunity has been on the decline … A progressive and meaningful estate tax is needed to curb the movement of a democracy toward plutocracy."

-Warren Buffet

Warren muthafuckin Buffet. The third wealthiest person in the world thinks rich people need to be taxed more. FYI, the estate tax is a tax on a rich man's entire wealth after he dies. up to $5,000,000 (That's 5 Million) can be passed from an individual upon his or her death without incurring federal estate tax. So it does not apply to you. It never did.

“Our thesis is that the rich are the dominant drivers in many economies around the world (the US, UK, Canada and Australia). These economies have seen the rich take an increasing share of income and wealth over the last 20 years, to the extent that the rich now dominate income, wealth and spending in these countries … the top 10%, particularly the 1% of the US – the plutonomists in our parlance – have benefited disproportionately from the recent productivity surge in the US … For these reasons, the recently released US Survey of Consumer Finances, which confirms that the rich continue to get wealthier and account for a disproportionate share of income and wealth in the US, is important … While the average consumer might not be feeling great, the important consumers – the richest 20%, who account, as we’ve shown, for 58% of income – are in good shape … And as the rich are accounting for an even larger share of wealth and spending, it is their actions that are dictating economic demand, not the actions of the “average” American”.

-Citigroup - http://jdeanicite.typepad.com/files/plutonomy-2.pdf

Citigroup - the world's largest financial services network, spanning 140 countries with approximately 16,000 offices worldwide, and also a primary dealer in US Treasury securities - says the rich are getting richer disproportionately from productivity. Granted this was from 2006 ... but if anything it's just gotten worse since then.

Today we are again facing the problem of widening gap between rich and poor that in part, drove Roosevelt to split from the Republican Party; plus the country is facing two huge additional problems. For the first time since the Great Depression, caused primarily by continued widening of the gap between rich and poor and deregulation, the country is faced with potential bankruptcy and for the first time since the civil war the country is too divided to do anything but tear itself apart. At a time when unity and shared sacrifice is required to put our financial house in order, and when the majority of the American people are calling for it, the politicians in Washington are listening only to fringe elements of their parties and to the big money interests whose blessings are required in todays political landscape to keep them in office.

This is just an excerpt from a posting by an average American that I thought would be ideal to close with. Something to think about, those few that will actually read all of this.