2 Questions

[g5000]

CFMA:

The PWG Report recommended: (1) the codification into the CEA, as an "exclusion", of existing regulatory exemptions for OTC financial derivatives, revised to permit electronic trading between "eligible swaps participants" (acting as "principals") and to even allow standardized (i.e. "fungible") contracts subject to "regulated" clearing; (2) continuation of the existing CFTC authority to exempt other non-agricultural commodities (such as energy products) from provisions of the CEA; (3) continuation of existing exemptions for "hybrid instruments" expanded to cover the Shad-Johnson Accord (thereby exempting from the CEA any hybrid that could be viewed as a future on a "non-exempt security"), and a prohibition on the CFTC changing the exemption without the agreement of the other members of the PWG; (4) continuation of the preemption of state laws that might otherwise make any "excluded" or "exempted" transactions illegal as gambling or otherwise; (5) as previously recommended by the PWG in its report on hedge funds, the expansion of SEC and CFTC "risk assessment" oversight of affiliates of securities firms and commodity firms engaged in OTC derivatives activities to ensure they did not endanger affiliated broker-dealers or futures commission merchants; (6) encouraging the CFTC to grant broad "deregulation" of existing exchange trading to reflect differences in (A) the susceptibility of commodities to price manipulation and (B) the "sophistication" and financial strength of the parties permitted to trade on the exchange; and (7) permission for single stock and narrow index stock futures on terms to be agreed between the CFTC and SEC.

This is from Section 117 of the CFMA:

This Act shall supersede and preempt the application of any State or local law that prohibits or regulates gaming or the operation of bucket shops

Why does a bank need exemptions from state gaming laws for casinos? Why does a bank need to be exempted from laws prohibiting bucket shops?

This type of legislation led to the outright fraud we saw leading up to the crash.

Where were all the States Rights advocates screaming about this blatant federal pre-emption of state laws? Why was Fox News not ranting about this?

Things that make you go hmmmmm...

 

[konradv]

OK so you admit your proposal is unworkable because the incumbent will always have the advantage.
Special interests support those they think will win. Note the shift in money towards the GOP recently. Same people supported the Dems in 2010.
And as I said, you would have to repeal the 1A to make that happen.

My plan was to get money-grubbing out of the system and prevent our representatives from selling their votes to the highest bidder. I never said anything about solving the name recognition advantage of incumbents. That was ALL YOU trying to muddy the waters.

 

[NYcarbineer]

.

Since this thread would no doubt end up becoming divided along political lines, I figured I would post it in "Politics".

Two questions:

1. Why, after all we've learned, do we still have financial institutions that are Too Big To Fail?

2. Why, after all we've learned, have we not instituted or re-instituted something like Glass Steagall?

.

The banks run the country.

 

[The Rabbi]

OK so you admit your proposal is unworkable because the incumbent will always have the advantage.
Special interests support those they think will win. Note the shift in money towards the GOP recently. Same people supported the Dems in 2010.
And as I said, you would have to repeal the 1A to make that happen.

My plan was to get money-grubbing out of the system and prevent our representatives from selling their votes to the highest bidder. I never said anything about solving the name recognition advantage of incumbents. That was ALL YOU trying to muddy the waters.

My point is it is impossible to get money out of the system. Every attempt thus far has been a failure. And it should be. Money is a proxy for power and voice, as the SUpreme Court realized. Silencing people's voices is what fascists do.

 

[The Rabbi]

.

Since this thread would no doubt end up becoming divided along political lines, I figured I would post it in "Politics".

Two questions:

1. Why, after all we've learned, do we still have financial institutions that are Too Big To Fail?

2. Why, after all we've learned, have we not instituted or re-instituted something like Glass Steagall?

.

The banks run the country.

Of course they do.

 

[zeke]

OK so you admit your proposal is unworkable because the incumbent will always have the advantage.
Special interests support those they think will win. Note the shift in money towards the GOP recently. Same people supported the Dems in 2010.
And as I said, you would have to repeal the 1A to make that happen.

My plan was to get money-grubbing out of the system and prevent our representatives from selling their votes to the highest bidder. I never said anything about solving the name recognition advantage of incumbents. That was ALL YOU trying to muddy the waters.

My point is it is impossible to get money out of the system. Every attempt thus far has been a failure. And it should be. Money is a proxy for power and voice, as the SUpreme Court realized. Silencing people's voices is what fascists do.

Who would of thought that this idea, that those with the most money have the most power and voice, who would have thought that was what the writers of the COTUS had in mind. Money as a proxy for power and voice in our form of government. Hmmmmm????

That's just hard for me to believe. And I thought you rethugs were big COTUS supporters.

 

[konradv]

My point is it is impossible to get money out of the system. Every attempt thus far has been a failure. And it should be. Money is a proxy for power and voice, as the SUpreme Court realized. Silencing people's voices is what fascists do.

You do advocate the silencing of voices, the voices of anyone who doesn't have deep pockets special interests to back them. Why would it be impossible to get money out of the system? I offered a plan. You'll have show how that plan would be impossible to achieve, not just unlikely, but impossible. If you're going to back yourself into a corner with an absolute, I going to have to demand you prove it.

 

[boilermaker55]

And when you have the SCOTUS ruling on such things as citizens united. It becomes all 3 of the branches owned and telling the country what to do.

.

Since this thread would no doubt end up becoming divided along political lines, I figured I would post it in "Politics".

Two questions:

1. Why, after all we've learned, do we still have financial institutions that are Too Big To Fail?

2. Why, after all we've learned, have we not instituted or re-instituted something like Glass Steagall?

.

 

[The Rabbi]

My point is it is impossible to get money out of the system. Every attempt thus far has been a failure. And it should be. Money is a proxy for power and voice, as the SUpreme Court realized. Silencing people's voices is what fascists do.

You do advocate the silencing of voices, the voices of anyone who doesn't have deep pockets special interests to back them. Why would it be impossible to get money out of the system? I offered a plan. You'll have show how that plan would be impossible to achieve, not just unlikely, but impossible. If you're going to back yourself into a corner with an absolute, I going to have to demand you prove it.

No such luck. People can aggregate their pockets. Maybe incorporate to avoid liability. They could produce movies that spoke to issues and give themselves populist names like "Citizens United".
Nahh.

 

[zeke]

My point is it is impossible to get money out of the system. Every attempt thus far has been a failure. And it should be. Money is a proxy for power and voice, as the SUpreme Court realized. Silencing people's voices is what fascists do.

You do advocate the silencing of voices, the voices of anyone who doesn't have deep pockets special interests to back them. Why would it be impossible to get money out of the system? I offered a plan. You'll have show how that plan would be impossible to achieve, not just unlikely, but impossible. If you're going to back yourself into a corner with an absolute, I going to have to demand you prove it.

You got good ideas. I would like to see a "Truth In Content" apply to campaign advertising. Both sides flat out lie and there is no one called on it. Pitiful.

 

[The Rabbi]

OK so you admit your proposal is unworkable because the incumbent will always have the advantage.
Special interests support those they think will win. Note the shift in money towards the GOP recently. Same people supported the Dems in 2010.
And as I said, you would have to repeal the 1A to make that happen.

My plan was to get money-grubbing out of the system and prevent our representatives from selling their votes to the highest bidder. I never said anything about solving the name recognition advantage of incumbents. That was ALL YOU trying to muddy the waters.

My point is it is impossible to get money out of the system. Every attempt thus far has been a failure. And it should be. Money is a proxy for power and voice, as the SUpreme Court realized. Silencing people's voices is what fascists do.

Who would of thought that this idea, that those with the most money have the most power and voice, who would have thought that was what the writers of the COTUS had in mind. Money as a proxy for power and voice in our form of government. Hmmmmm????

That's just hard for me to believe. And I thought you rethugs were big COTUS supporters.

It's hard for you to believe because you're a nitwit.

 

[The Rabbi]

My point is it is impossible to get money out of the system. Every attempt thus far has been a failure. And it should be. Money is a proxy for power and voice, as the SUpreme Court realized. Silencing people's voices is what fascists do.

You do advocate the silencing of voices, the voices of anyone who doesn't have deep pockets special interests to back them. Why would it be impossible to get money out of the system? I offered a plan. You'll have show how that plan would be impossible to achieve, not just unlikely, but impossible. If you're going to back yourself into a corner with an absolute, I going to have to demand you prove it.

You got good ideas. I would like to see a "Truth In Content" apply to campaign advertising. Both sides flat out lie and there is no one called on it. Pitiful.

We have truth in content. It's called the public media. You want a gov't appointed censor to tell people what they can and cannot say.
The fascist tendencies of liberals never cease to amaze me.

 

[candycorn]

Has there ever been a thread where Rabbi didn't resort to name-calling?

Ever?

 

[The Rabbi]

Has there ever been a thread where Rabbi didn't resort to name-calling?

Ever?

Ha there ever been a thread where you werent outed as a low information poster?

 

[konradv]

You do advocate the silencing of voices, the voices of anyone who doesn't have deep pockets special interests to back them. Why would it be impossible to get money out of the system? I offered a plan. You'll have show how that plan would be impossible to achieve, not just unlikely, but impossible. If you're going to back yourself into a corner with an absolute, I going to have to demand you prove it.

No such luck. People can aggregate their pockets. Maybe incorporate to avoid liability. They could produce movies that spoke to issues and give themselves populist names like "Citizens United". Nahh.

You're not answering the question. It wasn't about what people could do; it's about why would it be impossible to get money out of the system. As to what private citizens might do, a re-worked first amendment could include a time period before elections during which third-parties could not use the media in support of a candidate.

 

[konradv]

My point is it is impossible to get money out of the system. Every attempt thus far has been a failure. And it should be. Money is a proxy for power and voice, as the SUpreme Court realized. Silencing people's voices is what fascists do.

BTW, you broke your own rule. The sentence IN BOLD is a logical fallacy.

 

[g5000]

You're not answering the question. It wasn't about what people could do; it's about why would it be impossible to get money out of the system. As to what private citizens might do, a re-worked first amendment could include a time period before elections during which third-parties could not use the media in support of a candidate.

"A re-worked first amendment".

Jesus H. Christ.

 

[konradv]

You're not answering the question. It wasn't about what people could do; it's about why would it be impossible to get money out of the system. As to what private citizens might do, a re-worked first amendment could include a time period before elections during which third-parties could not use the media in support of a candidate.

"A re-worked first amendment".
Jesus H. Christ.

Why? The SC has indicated that "money is speech", so that would have to be addressed for public financing to be made law.

 

[The Rabbi]

My point is it is impossible to get money out of the system. Every attempt thus far has been a failure. And it should be. Money is a proxy for power and voice, as the SUpreme Court realized. Silencing people's voices is what fascists do.

BTW, you broke your own rule. The sentence IN BOLD is a logical fallacy.

Please explain what logical fallacy I committed.
It is obvious every attempt has been a failure because you people are bitching to get money out of politics and we've had legislation to do that going back to the 1950s.

 

[candycorn]

Has there ever been a thread where Rabbi didn't resort to name-calling?

Ever?

Ha there ever been a thread where you werent outed as a low information poster?

Remember when you wrote this?

I suspect the media narrative going forward will be "Romney put in a strong debate performance and mpved the needle to his side." It is likely nonsense. The polls have been skewed to show a tight race because no one wants to read about a landslide for 3 months. Romney has been consistently out polling Obama. But that's dull. This makes better copy.

You wrote the book on low or "no information" commentary Shirley.