The "Republican" Perspective

Discussion relating to current events, politics, religion, etc

The "Republican" Perspective

Postby mockbee » Wed Mar 11, 2015 1:35 pm

Hey LJF!

I have a question for you.

Do you agree with and support the Republicans, like Boehner supports, who went behind President Obama's back with a letter to Iran stating not to take the US nuclear deal seriously? And to give Netanyahu the floor in Congress?



G.O.P. Senators’ Letter to Iran About Nuclear Deal Angers White House


By PETER BAKER MARCH 9, 2015 nytimes


WASHINGTON — The fractious debate over a possible nuclear deal with Iran escalated on Monday as 47 Republican senators warned Iran about making an agreement with President Obama, and the White House accused them of undercutting foreign policy.

In a rare direct congressional intervention into diplomatic negotiations, the Republicans signed an open letter addressed to “leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” declaring that any agreement without legislative approval could be reversed by the next president “with the stroke of a pen.”

The letter appeared aimed at unraveling a framework agreement even as negotiators grew close to reaching it. Mr. Obama, working with leaders of five other world powers, argues that the pact would be the best way to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb. But critics from both parties say that such a deal would be a dangerous charade that would leave Iran with the opportunity to eventually build weapons that could be used against Israel or other foes.

While the possible agreement has drawn bipartisan criticism, the letter, signed only by Republicans, underscored the increasingly party-line flavor of the clash. Just last week, the Republican House speaker, John A. Boehner, gave Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel the platform of a joint meeting of Congress to denounce the developing deal, and Senate Republicans briefly tried to advance legislation aimed at forcing Mr. Obama to submit it to Congress, alienating Democratic allies.

The letter came as Secretary of State John Kerry’s office announced that he would return to Switzerland on Sunday in hopes of completing the framework agreement before an end-of-March deadline. Under the terms being discussed, Iran would pare back its nuclear program enough so that it would be unable to produce enough fuel for a bomb in less than a year if it tried to break out of the agreement. The pact would last at least 10 years; in exchange the world powers would lift sanctions.

Whether the Republican letter might undercut Iran’s willingness to strike a deal was not clear. Iran reacted with scorn. “In our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy,” Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister, said in a statement. “It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history.”

A senior American official said the letter probably would not stop an agreement from being reached, but could make it harder to blame Iran if the talks fail. “The problem is if there is not an agreement, the perception of who is at fault is critically important to our ability to maintain pressure, and this type of thing would likely be used by the Iranians in that scenario,” said the official, who spoke anonymously to discuss the negotiations.

The White House and congressional Democrats expressed outrage, calling the letter an unprecedented violation of the tradition of leaving politics at the water’s edge. Republicans said that by styling it as an “open letter,” it was akin to a statement, not an overt intervention in the talks.

“It’s somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hard-liners in Iran,” Mr. Obama told reporters. “It’s an unusual coalition.”

Other Democrats were sharper. Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, called it “just the latest in an ongoing strategy, a partisan strategy, to undermine the president’s ability to conduct foreign policy.” Senator Harry M. Reid of Nevada, the Democratic minority leader, said the “Republicans are undermining our commander in chief while empowering the ayatollahs.”

The letter, drafted by Senator Tom Cotton, a freshman from Arkansas, and signed by all but seven members of the Senate Republican majority, warned Iran that a deal with Mr. Obama might not stick. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen, and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time,” said the letter, whose existence was reported earlier by Bloomberg News.

Mr. Cotton said he drafted the letter because Iran’s leaders might not understand America’s constitutional system. He also said the terms of the emerging deal were dangerous because they would not be permanent and would leave Iran with nuclear infrastructure. He noted that four Republican senators who may run for president signed his letter and added that he tried without success to get Democrats to sign.

“The only thing unprecedented is an American president negotiating a nuclear deal with the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism without submitting it to Congress,” he said on CNN.

The letter revived an old debate about what role Congress should have in diplomacy.

Jim Wright, the Democratic House speaker during Ronald Reagan’s presidency, was accused of interfering when he met with opposing leaders in Nicaragua’s contra war. Three House Democrats went to Iraq in 2002 before President George W. Bush’s invasion to try to head off war. And Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, went to Syria in 2007 to meet with President Bashar al-Assad against the wishes of the Bush administration, which was trying to isolate him.

An agreement with Iran would not require immediate congressional action because Mr. Obama has the power to lift sanctions he imposed under his executive authority and to suspend others imposed by Congress. But permanently lifting those imposed by Congress, as Iran has sought, would eventually require a vote.

Rather than wait, Republicans, joined by several Democrats, drafted legislation aimed at forcing Mr. Obama to submit the agreement to Congress. But when Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican majority leader, moved to advance that legislation for a vote, Democrats who support it balked at taking action before the talks with Iran concluded. Mr. McConnell backed off, but the bill may be revived if a deal is reached.

Among the Republicans who declined to sign Mr. Cotton’s letter was Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, the Foreign Relations Committee chairman, who has been working with Democrats on Iran legislation. “We’ve got a bipartisan effort that’s underway that has a chance of being successful, and while I understand all kinds of people want to weigh in,” he said, he concluded that it would not “be helpful in that effort for me to be involved in it.”

Some Democrats, like Representative Brad Sherman of California, said the letter and other moves risked making it a party-line issue, in which case it would be impossible to muster a two-thirds vote to override a presidential veto. “The number of Democrats not willing to follow the president’s lead is reduced when it becomes a personal or political issue,” he said.
User avatar
mockbee
 
Posts: 2216
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am

Re: The "Republican" Perspective

Postby LJF » Thu Mar 12, 2015 10:06 am

mockbee wrote:Hey LJF!

I have a question for you.

Do you agree with and support the Republicans, like Boehner supports, who went behind President Obama's back with a letter to Iran stating not to take the US nuclear deal seriously? And to give Netanyahu the floor in Congress?



G.O.P. Senators’ Letter to Iran About Nuclear Deal Angers White House


By PETER BAKER MARCH 9, 2015 nytimes


WASHINGTON — The fractious debate over a possible nuclear deal with Iran escalated on Monday as 47 Republican senators warned Iran about making an agreement with President Obama, and the White House accused them of undercutting foreign policy.

In a rare direct congressional intervention into diplomatic negotiations, the Republicans signed an open letter addressed to “leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” declaring that any agreement without legislative approval could be reversed by the next president “with the stroke of a pen.”

The letter appeared aimed at unraveling a framework agreement even as negotiators grew close to reaching it. Mr. Obama, working with leaders of five other world powers, argues that the pact would be the best way to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb. But critics from both parties say that such a deal would be a dangerous charade that would leave Iran with the opportunity to eventually build weapons that could be used against Israel or other foes.

While the possible agreement has drawn bipartisan criticism, the letter, signed only by Republicans, underscored the increasingly party-line flavor of the clash. Just last week, the Republican House speaker, John A. Boehner, gave Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel the platform of a joint meeting of Congress to denounce the developing deal, and Senate Republicans briefly tried to advance legislation aimed at forcing Mr. Obama to submit it to Congress, alienating Democratic allies.

The letter came as Secretary of State John Kerry’s office announced that he would return to Switzerland on Sunday in hopes of completing the framework agreement before an end-of-March deadline. Under the terms being discussed, Iran would pare back its nuclear program enough so that it would be unable to produce enough fuel for a bomb in less than a year if it tried to break out of the agreement. The pact would last at least 10 years; in exchange the world powers would lift sanctions.

Whether the Republican letter might undercut Iran’s willingness to strike a deal was not clear. Iran reacted with scorn. “In our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy,” Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister, said in a statement. “It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history.”

A senior American official said the letter probably would not stop an agreement from being reached, but could make it harder to blame Iran if the talks fail. “The problem is if there is not an agreement, the perception of who is at fault is critically important to our ability to maintain pressure, and this type of thing would likely be used by the Iranians in that scenario,” said the official, who spoke anonymously to discuss the negotiations.

The White House and congressional Democrats expressed outrage, calling the letter an unprecedented violation of the tradition of leaving politics at the water’s edge. Republicans said that by styling it as an “open letter,” it was akin to a statement, not an overt intervention in the talks.

“It’s somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hard-liners in Iran,” Mr. Obama told reporters. “It’s an unusual coalition.”

Other Democrats were sharper. Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, called it “just the latest in an ongoing strategy, a partisan strategy, to undermine the president’s ability to conduct foreign policy.” Senator Harry M. Reid of Nevada, the Democratic minority leader, said the “Republicans are undermining our commander in chief while empowering the ayatollahs.”

The letter, drafted by Senator Tom Cotton, a freshman from Arkansas, and signed by all but seven members of the Senate Republican majority, warned Iran that a deal with Mr. Obama might not stick. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen, and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time,” said the letter, whose existence was reported earlier by Bloomberg News.

Mr. Cotton said he drafted the letter because Iran’s leaders might not understand America’s constitutional system. He also said the terms of the emerging deal were dangerous because they would not be permanent and would leave Iran with nuclear infrastructure. He noted that four Republican senators who may run for president signed his letter and added that he tried without success to get Democrats to sign.

“The only thing unprecedented is an American president negotiating a nuclear deal with the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism without submitting it to Congress,” he said on CNN.

The letter revived an old debate about what role Congress should have in diplomacy.

Jim Wright, the Democratic House speaker during Ronald Reagan’s presidency, was accused of interfering when he met with opposing leaders in Nicaragua’s contra war. Three House Democrats went to Iraq in 2002 before President George W. Bush’s invasion to try to head off war. And Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, went to Syria in 2007 to meet with President Bashar al-Assad against the wishes of the Bush administration, which was trying to isolate him.

An agreement with Iran would not require immediate congressional action because Mr. Obama has the power to lift sanctions he imposed under his executive authority and to suspend others imposed by Congress. But permanently lifting those imposed by Congress, as Iran has sought, would eventually require a vote.

Rather than wait, Republicans, joined by several Democrats, drafted legislation aimed at forcing Mr. Obama to submit the agreement to Congress. But when Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican majority leader, moved to advance that legislation for a vote, Democrats who support it balked at taking action before the talks with Iran concluded. Mr. McConnell backed off, but the bill may be revived if a deal is reached.

Among the Republicans who declined to sign Mr. Cotton’s letter was Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, the Foreign Relations Committee chairman, who has been working with Democrats on Iran legislation. “We’ve got a bipartisan effort that’s underway that has a chance of being successful, and while I understand all kinds of people want to weigh in,” he said, he concluded that it would not “be helpful in that effort for me to be involved in it.”

Some Democrats, like Representative Brad Sherman of California, said the letter and other moves risked making it a party-line issue, in which case it would be impossible to muster a two-thirds vote to override a presidential veto. “The number of Democrats not willing to follow the president’s lead is reduced when it becomes a personal or political issue,” he said.



You could have used PM for this, but whatever I'll take the bait. As I've stated before I'm not a republican, but I guess as far as this board is concerned I'm the closest thing. I feel aligning yourself with one party blinds you to whats out there. People need to be open to different view points, which I think neither side is willing to do. The other person is automatically wrong because they aren't from my party, well no wonder nothing gets done. Sit down listen to each other and get your fucking job done. We the people of the U.S. elected you to do a job and I feel no one is doing it. Both sides suck and it grinds me down the poison that they the elected officials have put into this country. Hell look here, I've been labeled republican so when I say something it is taken one way, when someone else says more or less the same thing it is taken differently. When does this shit in Washington end. I guess it started with W from the lefts view point and it continues with Obama from the right's view point. I'd say with the government a fish rots from the head down.

Really I've been trying to stay away from politics because I'm so fed up with the bullshit out of Washington, from both sides. I fully supported Netanyahu speaking and saw nothing wrong with that. I don't know much about what they did with the letter, but with the little I know it seems pretty stupid. They are pitting sides against each other and not trying to unite us. This country suffers from a very serious lack of trust and confidence. Really it seems there is no point in discussing things because my view point on some things is further to the right. It all just goes downhill from there.

Not sure if that helps but sure. No to the letter and yes to Netanyahu.

This country needs a real leader and we haven't seen one in a long time.
User avatar
LJF
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 4:37 pm
Location: jersey baby jersey

Re: The "Republican" Perspective

Postby mockbee » Thu Mar 12, 2015 10:42 am

LJF wrote:
You could have used PM for this, but whatever I'll take the bait.


Yeah, I really wasn't trying to be glib, but would like to hear a different perspective on things. No bait intended, but thanks for biting. :wink:

LJF wrote:
As I've stated before I'm not a republican, but I guess as far as this board is concerned I'm the closest thing. I feel aligning yourself with one party blinds you to whats out there. People need to be open to different view points, which I think neither side is willing to do. The other person is automatically wrong because they aren't from my party, well no wonder nothing gets done. Sit down listen to each other and get your fucking job done. We the people of the U.S. elected you to do a job and I feel no one is doing it. Both sides suck and it grinds me down the poison that they the elected officials have put into this country. Hell look here, I've been labeled republican so when I say something it is taken one way, when someone else says more or less the same thing it is taken differently. When does this shit in Washington end. I guess it started with W from the lefts view point and it continues with Obama from the right's view point. I'd say with the government a fish rots from the head down.

Really I've been trying to stay away from politics because I'm so fed up with the bullshit out of Washington, from both sides. I fully supported Netanyahu speaking and saw nothing wrong with that. I don't know much about what they did with the letter, but with the little I know it seems pretty stupid. They are pitting sides against each other and not trying to unite us. This country suffers from a very serious lack of trust and confidence. Really it seems there is no point in discussing things because my view point on some things is further to the right. It all just goes downhill from there.

Not sure if that helps but sure. No to the letter and yes to Netanyahu.
.


Totally agree with most of what you have said here. The whole Netanyahu thing stank though, financed and facilitated by Sheldon Adelson, luckily I think Iran and Israel at large will see it for the stunt it is. And the whole arbitrary divide started well before W, I think at least.

LJF wrote:This country needs a real leader and we haven't seen one in a long time.


Obama will go down as a good leader, if the economy holds. He hasn't got us into any unwinnable wars, and seriously paired down two of them, pretty good considereing I'd say. :noclue:

Overall Obama is a little too mainstream on the conservative financial and social side of things if you ask me...
User avatar
mockbee
 
Posts: 2216
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am

Re: The "Republican" Perspective

Postby SR » Thu Mar 12, 2015 11:12 am

LJF wrote:
mockbee wrote:Hey LJF!

I have a question for you.

Do you agree with and support the Republicans, like Boehner supports, who went behind President Obama's back with a letter to Iran stating not to take the US nuclear deal seriously? And to give Netanyahu the floor in Congress?



G.O.P. Senators’ Letter to Iran About Nuclear Deal Angers White House


By PETER BAKER MARCH 9, 2015 nytimes


WASHINGTON — The fractious debate over a possible nuclear deal with Iran escalated on Monday as 47 Republican senators warned Iran about making an agreement with President Obama, and the White House accused them of undercutting foreign policy.

In a rare direct congressional intervention into diplomatic negotiations, the Republicans signed an open letter addressed to “leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” declaring that any agreement without legislative approval could be reversed by the next president “with the stroke of a pen.”

The letter appeared aimed at unraveling a framework agreement even as negotiators grew close to reaching it. Mr. Obama, working with leaders of five other world powers, argues that the pact would be the best way to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb. But critics from both parties say that such a deal would be a dangerous charade that would leave Iran with the opportunity to eventually build weapons that could be used against Israel or other foes.

While the possible agreement has drawn bipartisan criticism, the letter, signed only by Republicans, underscored the increasingly party-line flavor of the clash. Just last week, the Republican House speaker, John A. Boehner, gave Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel the platform of a joint meeting of Congress to denounce the developing deal, and Senate Republicans briefly tried to advance legislation aimed at forcing Mr. Obama to submit it to Congress, alienating Democratic allies.

The letter came as Secretary of State John Kerry’s office announced that he would return to Switzerland on Sunday in hopes of completing the framework agreement before an end-of-March deadline. Under the terms being discussed, Iran would pare back its nuclear program enough so that it would be unable to produce enough fuel for a bomb in less than a year if it tried to break out of the agreement. The pact would last at least 10 years; in exchange the world powers would lift sanctions.

Whether the Republican letter might undercut Iran’s willingness to strike a deal was not clear. Iran reacted with scorn. “In our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy,” Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister, said in a statement. “It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history.”

A senior American official said the letter probably would not stop an agreement from being reached, but could make it harder to blame Iran if the talks fail. “The problem is if there is not an agreement, the perception of who is at fault is critically important to our ability to maintain pressure, and this type of thing would likely be used by the Iranians in that scenario,” said the official, who spoke anonymously to discuss the negotiations.

The White House and congressional Democrats expressed outrage, calling the letter an unprecedented violation of the tradition of leaving politics at the water’s edge. Republicans said that by styling it as an “open letter,” it was akin to a statement, not an overt intervention in the talks.

“It’s somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hard-liners in Iran,” Mr. Obama told reporters. “It’s an unusual coalition.”

Other Democrats were sharper. Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, called it “just the latest in an ongoing strategy, a partisan strategy, to undermine the president’s ability to conduct foreign policy.” Senator Harry M. Reid of Nevada, the Democratic minority leader, said the “Republicans are undermining our commander in chief while empowering the ayatollahs.”

The letter, drafted by Senator Tom Cotton, a freshman from Arkansas, and signed by all but seven members of the Senate Republican majority, warned Iran that a deal with Mr. Obama might not stick. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen, and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time,” said the letter, whose existence was reported earlier by Bloomberg News.

Mr. Cotton said he drafted the letter because Iran’s leaders might not understand America’s constitutional system. He also said the terms of the emerging deal were dangerous because they would not be permanent and would leave Iran with nuclear infrastructure. He noted that four Republican senators who may run for president signed his letter and added that he tried without success to get Democrats to sign.

“The only thing unprecedented is an American president negotiating a nuclear deal with the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism without submitting it to Congress,” he said on CNN.

The letter revived an old debate about what role Congress should have in diplomacy.

Jim Wright, the Democratic House speaker during Ronald Reagan’s presidency, was accused of interfering when he met with opposing leaders in Nicaragua’s contra war. Three House Democrats went to Iraq in 2002 before President George W. Bush’s invasion to try to head off war. And Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, went to Syria in 2007 to meet with President Bashar al-Assad against the wishes of the Bush administration, which was trying to isolate him.

An agreement with Iran would not require immediate congressional action because Mr. Obama has the power to lift sanctions he imposed under his executive authority and to suspend others imposed by Congress. But permanently lifting those imposed by Congress, as Iran has sought, would eventually require a vote.

Rather than wait, Republicans, joined by several Democrats, drafted legislation aimed at forcing Mr. Obama to submit the agreement to Congress. But when Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican majority leader, moved to advance that legislation for a vote, Democrats who support it balked at taking action before the talks with Iran concluded. Mr. McConnell backed off, but the bill may be revived if a deal is reached.

Among the Republicans who declined to sign Mr. Cotton’s letter was Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, the Foreign Relations Committee chairman, who has been working with Democrats on Iran legislation. “We’ve got a bipartisan effort that’s underway that has a chance of being successful, and while I understand all kinds of people want to weigh in,” he said, he concluded that it would not “be helpful in that effort for me to be involved in it.”

Some Democrats, like Representative Brad Sherman of California, said the letter and other moves risked making it a party-line issue, in which case it would be impossible to muster a two-thirds vote to override a presidential veto. “The number of Democrats not willing to follow the president’s lead is reduced when it becomes a personal or political issue,” he said.



You could have used PM for this, but whatever I'll take the bait. As I've stated before I'm not a republican, but I guess as far as this board is concerned I'm the closest thing. I feel aligning yourself with one party blinds you to whats out there. People need to be open to different view points, which I think neither side is willing to do. The other person is automatically wrong because they aren't from my party, well no wonder nothing gets done. Sit down listen to each other and get your fucking job done. We the people of the U.S. elected you to do a job and I feel no one is doing it. Both sides suck and it grinds me down the poison that they the elected officials have put into this country. Hell look here, I've been labeled republican so when I say something it is taken one way, when someone else says more or less the same thing it is taken differently. When does this shit in Washington end. I guess it started with W from the lefts view point and it continues with Obama from the right's view point. I'd say with the government a fish rots from the head down.

Really I've been trying to stay away from politics because I'm so fed up with the bullshit out of Washington, from both sides. I fully supported Netanyahu speaking and saw nothing wrong with that. I don't know much about what they did with the letter, but with the little I know it seems pretty stupid. They are pitting sides against each other and not trying to unite us. This country suffers from a very serious lack of trust and confidence. Really it seems there is no point in discussing things because my view point on some things is further to the right. It all just goes downhill from there.

Not sure if that helps but sure. No to the letter and yes to Netanyahu.

This country needs a real leader and we haven't seen one in a long time.
I agree with someone who said it's good to see ya. I am guilty of being a pompous ass with you, and I think I apologized.....if not, I do. I don't think this thread was to bait you though. :tiphat:
User avatar
SR
 
Posts: 6144
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:56 pm

Re: The "Republican" Perspective

Postby LJF » Fri Mar 13, 2015 5:52 am

Overall Obama is a little too mainstream on the conservative financial and social side of things if you ask me...[/quote]

I'm asking you. Can you elaborate.
User avatar
LJF
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 4:37 pm
Location: jersey baby jersey

Re: The "Republican" Perspective

Postby Essence_Smith » Fri Mar 13, 2015 8:06 am

Not a guy who really gets too deep into political discussion, but on the surface side of things I think Obama doesn't have a choice but to kind of be conservative on certain matters...socially anything that leans too far on one side tends to get blown up pretty badly...I remember him matter of factly saying that if he had a son he would likely look like Trayvon Martin and the fallout from that was... :yikes:
User avatar
Essence_Smith
 
Posts: 2146
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:52 pm

Re: The "Republican" Perspective

Postby mockbee » Fri Mar 13, 2015 9:50 am

LJF wrote:Overall Obama is a little too mainstream on the conservative financial and social side of things if you ask me...

I'm asking you. Can you elaborate.



Well....this is coming from a non-financial background understanding of things, and of particular concern for the welfare of the working class.

What is difference now than in 2007? There is greater bank consolidation now than in any time in history.

Image

The banks need to be broken up, and the Volcker Rule should have been included in Dodd-Frank.

LJF, do you support Dodd-Frank, it looks like it has been working amazingly well?

And if you think Banks should continue to consolidate on the path they are now, I can only assume you support one large state (or private, however you want to phrase it) run bank, because that is what it will be. What is the difference between one bank, whether the government it beholden to it, or the bank to the government?







I'm not saying Obama didn't support Dodd-Frank. (I mean he signed it into law, certainly) Just I wish he was more outspoken about what that means for protecting the populace from out of control banks.



I see a repeat of 2007 on the horizon if you ask me (again). The fallout would be absolutely catostrophic for the working class.

Another thing about Obama, I don't know how he could have done it, but ZERO major players were indicted for creating the Great Recession. Maybe you would say "laws" weren't broken, but surely there was evil stuff going on. Just goes to show, if you have money, you write the rules for your own gain. The way of the world? :noclue:




Break Up Big Banks, Sanders Says as Senate Debates Bill to Gut Wall Street Reform
Saturday, December 13, 2014

[Wall St] As the Senate met in a rare Saturday session, Sen. Bernie Sanders said he will introduce legislation to break up Wall Street megabanks that are using a bill before the Senate this weekend to put taxpayers on the hook for the banks’ risky investments. The House-passed bill would roll back a law limiting risky investments like those that caused the financial crisis of 2008 and the recession that followed.

“Over the last several days, it has become abundantly clear that Congress does not regulate Wall Street but Wall Street regulates Congress. If Wall Street lobbyists can literally write a provision into law that will allow too-big-to-fail banks to make the same risky bets that nearly destroyed our economy just a few years ago, it should be obvious to all that their incredible economic and political power is a huge danger to our economy and our way of life,” Sanders said.

Lobbyists for Citigroup drafted the measure and JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon reportedly called congressmen to lobby for the provision that would gut a key provision of Dodd-Frank, the Wall Street reform law passed in 2010.

“Enough is enough,” Sanders said. “Today, almost all of the too-big-to-fail banks are bigger and even more powerful than they were before we bailed them out. The six largest financial institutions have over $9.8 trillion in assets — the equivalent of more than 60 percent of GDP. They issue over half of the mortgages and more than two-thirds of the credit cards in America

“If Congress cannot regulate Wall Street, there is just one alternative. It is time to break these too-big-to-fail banks up so that they can never again destroy the jobs, homes, and life savings of the American people.

“At the beginning of the new Congress, I will be introducing legislation that will break these behemoth banks up once and for all. If a financial institution is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. I look forward to working with both progressive and conservative Senators who have the courage to stand up to Wall Street and protect the working families of this country,” Sanders said.
User avatar
mockbee
 
Posts: 2216
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am

Re: The "Republican" Perspective

Postby mockbee » Fri Mar 13, 2015 9:54 am

Actually, LJF, your question about Obama and his positions on Financial matters made me do a little research. And with the way Congress is, I am astounded that he got Dodd-Frank through in the shape it was. Originally I thought they gutted it, but it was pretty good considering.

I am proud of Obama for that. Maybe it was because he stayed under the radar. "Good Leaders" do that, a lot.
User avatar
mockbee
 
Posts: 2216
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am

Re: The "Republican" Perspective

Postby LJF » Sat Mar 14, 2015 11:20 am

No I don't like the consolidation of the banks. What has happened has made the banks that were too big to fail is now they are even bigger. I'd be fine with companies spinning off divisions. Look at Bank odfAmerica, they bought countrywide and were forced into buying Merrill Lynch. There is no doubt that was a forced marriage. Next the government goes after BAC for everything the companies they acquired did before they were part of BAC. Obama was all talk about making the banks/firms be held responsible for causing 2008. Which is also bullshit. Putting blame on wall street was great for the election, but it was and is total bullshit. Great let's start the U.S. Vs them warfare. I mean come on really wall street caused it all, holy shit are people that fucking stupid. Why didn't they go after that piece of shit Stan o'neal. That motherfucker is the biggest lying cheating piece of shit. Nail his balls to the wall with all of his henchman. There was clear neglegiance for what he did and all the while he was selling his stock. I'll leave all that for another day.

Look at the biggest donors to Obama first campaign. He hates the big banks, but he sure was in bed with them. He gladly took all their money for his campaign.

I'm more concerned about student loans, all these loans and no jobs for grads. They will get written off for the tax payer to deal with at some point. Something has to happen because there is no way the loans are being paid off on time. This economy and job rate aren't that good. The wealth that has been created over the past 6 years sure isn't from jobs, it's been from the stock market. Which has been helped by the most powerful person in the world and that is the fed chairmen. Now I guess it would be chairwoman. People don't care as much when Obama speaks, but when Janet Yellen talks the world listens and reacts. She clearly is the most powerful person in the world.

You want to know who matters in this world just pay attention to when Janet Yellen or Mario Draghi speak. They talk and things happen, they matter. Obama just reads about it in the news.

No I don't really care for and would be fine with breaking up divisions of the banks. But big banks aren't the cause of all the evil that people want to believe.


Well that was rather long and rambling, but that's what happens when you get very little sleep at this age.
User avatar
LJF
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 4:37 pm
Location: jersey baby jersey

Re: The "Republican" Perspective

Postby Hype » Sat Mar 14, 2015 11:49 am

Putting blame on wall street was great for the election, but it was and is total bullshit


Is there any evidence for this?

Why shouldn't we agree with Robert Reich?
User avatar
Hype
 
Posts: 6210
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: The "Republican" Perspective

Postby LJF » Sat Mar 14, 2015 1:57 pm

Adurentibus Spina wrote:
Putting blame on wall street was great for the election, but it was and is total bullshit


Is there any evidence for this?

Why shouldn't we agree with Robert Reich?



Sure, everyday people like us, well not you since you don't live in the U.S. buying houses we couldn't afford. No worries thou since we can just flip it. The push by both Clinton and Bush to reduce lending standards for mortgages. Real estate agents pushing people into houses that they couldn't afford. No doubt wall street had a hand in the issues and problems, but so did most people.

No doc loans.

It was very easy to throw the blame on wall street and start the class warfare. The big problem with that is probably 99% of people that worked and work on "wall street" had nothing to do with what a few people did. It throw a lot of people under the bus and vilified a huge majority of people. It wasn't easy for anyone associated with "wall street" to earn a living after 2008. Obama made some big statements and never followed through. O'neal and Dick Fuld easy to nail. O"neal is a bad person.
User avatar
LJF
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 4:37 pm
Location: jersey baby jersey

Re: The "Republican" Perspective

Postby mockbee » Sat Mar 14, 2015 2:07 pm

LJF wrote:
Adurentibus Spina wrote:
Putting blame on wall street was great for the election, but it was and is total bullshit


Is there any evidence for this?

Why shouldn't we agree with Robert Reich?



Sure, everyday people like us, well not you since you don't live in the U.S. buying houses we couldn't afford. No worries thou since we can just flip it. The push by both Clinton and Bush to reduce lending standards for mortgages. Real estate agents pushing people into houses that they couldn't afford. No doubt wall street had a hand in the issues and problems, but so did most people.

No doc loans.

It was very easy to throw the blame on wall street and start the class warfare. The big problem with that is probably 99% of people that worked and work on "wall street" had nothing to do with what a few people did. It throw a lot of people under the bus and vilified a huge majority of people. It wasn't easy for anyone associated with "wall street" to earn a living after 2008. Obama made some big statements and never followed through. O'neal and Dick Fuld easy to nail. O"neal is a bad person.



So you put the same onus on a working class family who is told they can afford to buy a home by a bank, and the mortgage broker and traders who take advantage of the securities for that risky loan?

Sure, the family will loose the house if they can't pay, I have no problem with that, but you are saying those "homeowners" were just as responsible for the entire financial crisis as the lenders, brokers and traders.

This is what I am hearing in your statement. :noclue:
User avatar
mockbee
 
Posts: 2216
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am

Re: The "Republican" Perspective

Postby LJF » Sat Mar 14, 2015 2:50 pm

Not what I said and not really the people I'm talking about. There are plenty of people that bought houses knowing couldn't afford it and they weren't taken advantage of. They went into eyes wide open, but thinking no problem I'll just sell it no problem and sell it at a profit. Houses never go down. When the housing market stopped they got caught holding it. Sure they were people that taken advantage of, but there were a lot that knew what they were doing. Sorry can't always throw blame on others. Just like the vast majority of Wall Street had not a fucking thing to do with this.

Just look at the shows on TV, house flippers etc.

No one wants to hear it and it's easy to blames others afterwards, but people had too much debt. Maybe if they understood things about finance that you feel are insignificant they wouldn't have been.

Bottom line is there is a lot of blame to go around for the crisis and until people are willing to accept this and take responsibility it will never change and happen again and again.

If you want to bury your head in the sand and pretend there weren't willing participants in this that is fine. If you also want to pretend there weren't people working at firms on Wall Street telling people they couldn't afford the bigger, but they went for it anyways cool.

Just because someone didn't contribute to the problem on the same level doesn't mean they didn't have a hand in it. I want people to be responsible for want they do and when it goes badly not to blame others. I feel this is lacking greatly today.
User avatar
LJF
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 4:37 pm
Location: jersey baby jersey

Re: The "Republican" Perspective

Postby LJF » Sat Mar 14, 2015 2:51 pm

mockbee wrote:
LJF wrote:
Adurentibus Spina wrote:
Putting blame on wall street was great for the election, but it was and is total bullshit


Is there any evidence for this?

Why shouldn't we agree with Robert Reich?



Sure, everyday people like us, well not you since you don't live in the U.S. buying houses we couldn't afford. No worries thou since we can just flip it. The push by both Clinton and Bush to reduce lending standards for mortgages. Real estate agents pushing people into houses that they couldn't afford. No doubt wall street had a hand in the issues and problems, but so did most people.

No doc loans.

It was very easy to throw the blame on wall street and start the class warfare. The big problem with that is probably 99% of people that worked and work on "wall street" had nothing to do with what a few people did. It throw a lot of people under the bus and vilified a huge majority of people. It wasn't easy for anyone associated with "wall street" to earn a living after 2008. Obama made some big statements and never followed through. O'neal and Dick Fuld easy to nail. O"neal is a bad person.



So you put the same onus on a working class family who is told they can afford to buy a home by a bank, and the mortgage broker and traders who take advantage of the securities for that risky loan?

Sure, the family will loose the house if they can't pay, I have no problem with that, but you are saying those "homeowners" were just as responsible for the entire financial crisis as the lenders, brokers and traders.

This is what I am hearing in your statement. :noclue:



I think you are hearing what you want to hear.
User avatar
LJF
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 4:37 pm
Location: jersey baby jersey

Re: The "Republican" Perspective

Postby creep » Sat Mar 14, 2015 2:56 pm

mockbee wrote:
LJF wrote:
Adurentibus Spina wrote:
Putting blame on wall street was great for the election, but it was and is total bullshit


Is there any evidence for this?

Why shouldn't we agree with Robert Reich?



Sure, everyday people like us, well not you since you don't live in the U.S. buying houses we couldn't afford. No worries thou since we can just flip it. The push by both Clinton and Bush to reduce lending standards for mortgages. Real estate agents pushing people into houses that they couldn't afford. No doubt wall street had a hand in the issues and problems, but so did most people.

No doc loans.

It was very easy to throw the blame on wall street and start the class warfare. The big problem with that is probably 99% of people that worked and work on "wall street" had nothing to do with what a few people did. It throw a lot of people under the bus and vilified a huge majority of people. It wasn't easy for anyone associated with "wall street" to earn a living after 2008. Obama made some big statements and never followed through. O'neal and Dick Fuld easy to nail. O"neal is a bad person.



So you put the same onus on a working class family who is told they can afford to buy a home by a bank, and the mortgage broker and traders who take advantage of the securities for that risky loan?

Sure, the family will loose the house if they can't pay, I have no problem with that, but you are saying those "homeowners" were just as responsible for the entire financial crisis as the lenders, brokers and traders.

This is what I am hearing in your statement. :noclue:


i do think people have to take certain personal responsibility. there were many that took advantage of the situation too. millions of people took a second out on their house to by their ski boat or facelift and boob job knowing that their adjustable rate mortgage was about to change and that they would lose their house. my best friend was upside down on his house and he took full advantage of the system and stoped paying on the house, lived in it for a year mortgage free and then a year later bought a much nicer house for what he owed on his old house. like ljf said....there are many people to blame.

oh and student loans....they never go away. you can't get rid of them in bankruptcy and they will pretty much only go away if you die. you will pretty much have to pay them back if you ever want decent credit or if you ever want to own a house or get a tax refund. you can't just walk away from them.
creep
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9093
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 9:51 am

Re: The "Republican" Perspective

Postby mockbee » Sat Mar 14, 2015 3:10 pm

creep wrote:
i do think people have to take certain personal responsibility. there were many that took advantage of the situation too. millions of people took a second out on their house to by their ski boat or facelift and boob job knowing that their adjustable rate mortgage was about to change and that they would lose their house. my best friend was upside down on his house and he took full advantage of the system and stoped paying on the house, lived in it for a year mortgage free and then a year later bought a much nicer house for what he owed on his old house. like ljf said....there are many people to blame.

oh and student loans....they never go away. you can't get rid of them in bankruptcy and they will pretty much only go away if you die. you will pretty much have to pay them back if you ever want decent credit or if you ever want to own a house or get a tax refund. you can't just walk away from them.


Sure we are talking in generalities here. I think we all agree though. Your friend was an idiot, and anybody in it just to flip are idiots and the banks lending to them are idiots. A lot of other innocents folks were caught up and paid a price though. It was mass confusion whether you should work with your bank or not. A lot of people who did, just got screwed over big time.


Yes, everyone who paid a price did make decisions that were risky, just it seemed like the worst of the worst got away with it, like pretty much everybody at WaMu, I hated that bank, and people like Creeps friend.
User avatar
mockbee
 
Posts: 2216
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am

Re: The "Republican" Perspective

Postby creep » Sat Mar 14, 2015 3:44 pm

i don't know if idiot is the right word. many of the people involved in the collapse made a shitload of money. morally they are horrible people but i wouldn't call them idiots.

i don't know if you financed the land you just bought but let's say you did and let's say you found something wrong with it and it suddenly becomes worth 1/10 of what you paid for it. you could never build on it. would you pay your debt?
creep
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9093
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 9:51 am

Re: The "Republican" Perspective

Postby mockbee » Sat Mar 14, 2015 3:48 pm

LJF wrote:
Just because someone didn't contribute to the problem on the same level doesn't mean they didn't have a hand in it. I want people to be responsible for want they do and when it goes badly not to blame others. I feel this is lacking greatly today.



I agree. :bigrin:

You know LJF, I think we are both guilty of talking in generalities, and making assumptions based on the paradigms we live in, a liberal circle and whatever circle you live in. But at the end of the day, we probably agree on a lot of stuff, just have some biases towards particular players being less or more responsible, but overall want everyone to be more responsible.


Hope you are able to get some sleep, I know how that is.


:wave:
User avatar
mockbee
 
Posts: 2216
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am

Re: The "Republican" Perspective

Postby mockbee » Sat Mar 14, 2015 3:50 pm

creep wrote:i don't know if idiot is the right word. many of the people involved in the collapse made a shitload of money. morally they are horrible people but i wouldn't call them idiots.

i don't know if you financed the land you just bought but let's say you did and let's say you found something wrong with it and it suddenly becomes worth 1/10 of what you paid for it. you could never build on it. would you pay your debt?



I have never financed anything in my life. Well, college but paid that off in 5 years and as I went.
User avatar
mockbee
 
Posts: 2216
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am

Re: The "Republican" Perspective

Postby mockbee » Sat Mar 14, 2015 3:52 pm

creep wrote:..... let's say you found something wrong with it and it suddenly becomes worth 1/10 of what you paid for it. you could never build on it. would you pay your debt?



I would never think not too, seems to risky for future endeavors not to. :noclue:

If for some reason I absolutely couldn't, I'd have to give it up. But that is just what I think I would do, don't know what I would actually do. :noclue:
User avatar
mockbee
 
Posts: 2216
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am

Next

Return to Current Events

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest