Bernie Sanders: We Will Raise Taxes On Anyone Making Over $29,000 To Fund Government Health Care

[pknopp]

Absolutely. The government removed restrictions and in return the banks made bad loans for the government's benefit to buy votes.

No true. That is factually incorrect. The government removed no restrictions, that had anything to do with the crisis.

I can't believe there are still people ignorant of what went on.

Banks could not gamble with depositors money before Graham/Leach/Bliley.

You are talking about the separation of retail, commercial banks, and insurance.

Couple of problems with trying to blame the GLB Act, for the sub-prime crash.

First, the sub-prime bubble started in 1997, and the GLB act was passed in 1999.

So as you can see, the boom in housing prices clearly started in 1997.
The idea that somehow the GLB Act in 1999, somehow retroactively caused a housing bubble that started in 1997, seems unlikely.

Second, no other country had such a prohibition on Commercial and Retail banking. There was no comparable Glass-Steagall Act in Canada, Mexico, or anywhere in Europe, the UK, Japan, or anywhere else.

Yet the problem originated in the US, nowhere else that never had such regulations.

Third, the vast majority of all the banks that failed, were not, and would not, have been affected by these regulations.

Indymac. Retail bank only. Glass-Steagall would not have affected it.
Countrywide Financial. Commercial mortgage bank only.
WaMu, retail only.
Lehman Bro. Commercial only.

And the list of banks that were all single purpose banks, and failed, is large.
Very few banks would have been affected by Glass-Steagall. In fact, I only know of one specific bank that would have been affected, namely Citigroup.
There was one other bank that qualified as far as I know, and that bank did not fail.

So as I said, there is no regulations that were repealed, that had anything to do with the sub-prime crash.

If GLB Act had never happened, Countrywide Financial would not have been affected, and still would have failed. Same with Indymac, WaMu, Lehman Bro, and Bear Stearns. None of those banks were affected at all by the passing of GLB Act, nor if the GLB Act had never happened.

The problem was that banks were allowed to gamble with money that was not theirs. They were restrained from doing that with Glass/Steagal. The investment side and loan sides were separate.

Is it possible the banks could have still been corrupt without investing depositers money? Absolutely. The thing then though is when the bets went bad they only lose their money, not the money of the depositers. They get their money and the bank goes under.

We just covered this.

Indymac was not an investment bank. It was retail bank. Only a retail bank. If GLB Act, had never existed..... if Glass Steagall was still enforced 100%...... Indymac would not have been affected by this at all.

They were not doing both investment and loans. Same with Countrywide. Same with Lehman. Same with Bear Stearns.

Moreover, the entire rest of the world, never had the regulations you are talking about. If what you claimed was the problem... .if the big problem was "The problem was that banks were allowed to gamble with money that was not theirs. They were restrained from doing that with Glass/Steagal. The investment side and loan sides were separate."

if that was the problem, then why didn't the sub-prime crash originate in Europe, or the UK, or Canada, where they have NEVER HAD any such restriction?

And lastly, the sub-prime bubble started in 1997. GLB Act was passed in 1999. How did a policy enacted in 1999, cause a bubble to form in 1997?

The rest of the world actually enforces its financial laws when they get broken. There was no bubble in 1997.

 

[pknopp]

Absolutely. The government removed restrictions and in return the banks made bad loans for the government's benefit to buy votes.

You agree, none of the restrictions would have stopped bad mortgages.

It would have stopped the involvement of customers money.

It would have stopped the involvement of customers money.

You think banks have 2 separate pots of money they lend?

One pot is "customer money", what's the second one?

Investors money. But you know this.

You think that if I buy Bank of America stock, they segregate loans made with my money from loans made with deposits?

That's honestly the funniest thing I've heard all day.

No, that was kept on the investment side. When I deposited the money it was kept on the other side.

The banks could not intermingle them.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No true. That is factually incorrect. The government removed no restrictions, that had anything to do with the crisis.

I can't believe there are still people ignorant of what went on.

Banks could not gamble with depositors money before Graham/Leach/Bliley.

Banks could not gamble with depositors money before Graham/Leach/Bliley.

Mortgages were gambling?

Weren't they? It was good mortgages that blew up?

Were mortgages restricted by Glass-Steagall or not?

No, investing was.

Mortgages aren't investments? LOL!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Running away was your reply.

I noted the quid pro quo that caused the problems. It has been discussed endlessly.

A quid pro quo caused the mortgage crisis? LOL!

Absolutely. The government removed restrictions and in return the banks made bad loans for the government's benefit to buy votes.

You agree, none of the restrictions would have stopped bad mortgages.

It would have stopped the involvement of customers money.

It wasn't customer money.

Banks basically have two kinds of loans: prime loans and subprime loans. Prime loans are where the bank lends it's own money to the customer. Subprime loans (as the name suggests) are loans that are not as secure as prime loans, therefore the bank only makes money on processing the loan, and then sells it as securities to other entities.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry for jumping in... but I am not entirely sure what you are talking about.

Do you mean the sub-prime crash of 2007-2009? Because that was almost entirely government caused.

I still disagree with the bailouts (which actually were not a bailout at all), but there is no question it was government caused.

So you say "almost". We agree there was both sides at fault. Then the only discussion is how much each side is at fault.

Is that really worthy to argue?

Well yes, because I would say 99% was government, and the main "fault" of the banks as it were, was trusting government.

Government was suing banks to make bad loans.
Government was pushing banks to make bad loans.
Government incentivized banks to make bad loans.
Government even required banks to make bad loans in order to get merger approvals.
Government even guaranteed sub-prime loans.

And the problem is, with all this concerted effort to push banks to make bad loans, then you want to point at the banks and say they should not have done that. Well.... while technically true, that is entirely unfair.

Without government intervention, the sub-prime crash would never have happened. Because prior to 1997, the government didn't make any direct overt moves to push sub-prime loans, and before 1997, they were a niche market.

Prior to 1997, sub-prime loans were tiny, and the market was flat. There was no real significant growth, until the government got involved in 1997.

No bank was sued to make a bad loan. When you start like this, I stop.

No bank was sued to make a bad loan.

Baloney. That's how Obama got his start....organizing his community.

Who did Obama sue?

Local banks who didn't make enough loans in black areas.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Stop the lying, libertards. From Bernie's actual plan:

An employer’s first $2 million in payroll would be exempt from this premium protecting small businesses throughout the country. 4 percent income-based premium paid by households Revenue raised: $3.5 trillion over ten years. The typical middle class family would save over $4,400 under this plan. Last year the typical working family paid an average of $5,277 in premiums to private health insurance companies. Under this option, a typical family of four earning $50,000, after taking the standard deduction, would pay a 4 percent income-based premium to fund Medicare for All – just $844 a year – saving that family over $4,400 a year. Because of the standard deduction, families of four making less than $29,000 a year would not pay this premium.

..saving the entire $5,277/yr ("tax") they now spend "on average."

Poor, small employers, middle class - all SAVE compared to the current robbery bigtime. The wealthy begin paying their fair share because, duh, they can easily afford to.

Making $150,000 to $200,000 a year will put you squarely in the top 5 percent of American wage-earners.

In other words, well above "middle class" income. The plan's progressive tax increase table doesn't even begin until earnings at least $250,000/yr.

..saving the entire $5,277/yr ("tax") they now spend "on average."

Can they add that savings to the $2500 a year Obama already saved them?

Thankfully, Obamacare will be gone and can eat my shorts!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You agree, none of the restrictions would have stopped bad mortgages.

It would have stopped the involvement of customers money.

It would have stopped the involvement of customers money.

You think banks have 2 separate pots of money they lend?

One pot is "customer money", what's the second one?

Investors money. But you know this.

You think that if I buy Bank of America stock, they segregate loans made with my money from loans made with deposits?

That's honestly the funniest thing I've heard all day.

No, that was kept on the investment side. When I deposited the money it was kept on the other side.

The banks could not intermingle them.

No, that was kept on the investment side. When I deposited the money it was kept on the other side.

Banks could invest my "share money" in mortgages?
How could they invest your "deposit money"?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Stop the lying, libertards. From Bernie's actual plan:

An employer’s first $2 million in payroll would be exempt from this premium protecting small businesses throughout the country. 4 percent income-based premium paid by households Revenue raised: $3.5 trillion over ten years. The typical middle class family would save over $4,400 under this plan. Last year the typical working family paid an average of $5,277 in premiums to private health insurance companies. Under this option, a typical family of four earning $50,000, after taking the standard deduction, would pay a 4 percent income-based premium to fund Medicare for All – just $844 a year – saving that family over $4,400 a year. Because of the standard deduction, families of four making less than $29,000 a year would not pay this premium.

..saving the entire $5,277/yr ("tax") they now spend "on average."

Poor, small employers, middle class - all SAVE compared to the current robbery bigtime. The wealthy begin paying their fair share because, duh, they can easily afford to.

Making $150,000 to $200,000 a year will put you squarely in the top 5 percent of American wage-earners.

In other words, well above "middle class" income. The plan's progressive tax increase table doesn't even begin until earnings at least $250,000/yr.

..saving the entire $5,277/yr ("tax") they now spend "on average."

Can they add that savings to the $2500 a year Obama already saved them?

Thankfully, Obamacare will be gone and can eat my shorts!

So will all your money. And your healthcare.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Stop the lying, libertards. From Bernie's actual plan:

An employer’s first $2 million in payroll would be exempt from this premium protecting small businesses throughout the country. 4 percent income-based premium paid by households Revenue raised: $3.5 trillion over ten years. The typical middle class family would save over $4,400 under this plan. Last year the typical working family paid an average of $5,277 in premiums to private health insurance companies. Under this option, a typical family of four earning $50,000, after taking the standard deduction, would pay a 4 percent income-based premium to fund Medicare for All – just $844 a year – saving that family over $4,400 a year. Because of the standard deduction, families of four making less than $29,000 a year would not pay this premium.

..saving the entire $5,277/yr ("tax") they now spend "on average."

Poor, small employers, middle class - all SAVE compared to the current robbery bigtime. The wealthy begin paying their fair share because, duh, they can easily afford to.

Making $150,000 to $200,000 a year will put you squarely in the top 5 percent of American wage-earners.

In other words, well above "middle class" income. The plan's progressive tax increase table doesn't even begin until earnings at least $250,000/yr.

..saving the entire $5,277/yr ("tax") they now spend "on average."

Can they add that savings to the $2500 a year Obama already saved them?

Thankfully, Obamacare will be gone and can eat my shorts!

So will all your money. And your healthcare.

You wish. LOL

 

[Andylusion]

I know, writing and buying mortgages...….crazy!

Because that is what got them in trouble? It had nothing to do with packaging bad loans as good investment?

That is what caused the S&L crises?

Sorry for jumping in... but I am not entirely sure what you are talking about.

Do you mean the sub-prime crash of 2007-2009? Because that was almost entirely government caused.

I still disagree with the bailouts (which actually were not a bailout at all), but there is no question it was government caused.

So you say "almost". We agree there was both sides at fault. Then the only discussion is how much each side is at fault.

Is that really worthy to argue?

Well yes, because I would say 99% was government, and the main "fault" of the banks as it were, was trusting government.

Government was suing banks to make bad loans.
Government was pushing banks to make bad loans.
Government incentivized banks to make bad loans.
Government even required banks to make bad loans in order to get merger approvals.
Government even guaranteed sub-prime loans.

And the problem is, with all this concerted effort to push banks to make bad loans, then you want to point at the banks and say they should not have done that. Well.... while technically true, that is entirely unfair.

Without government intervention, the sub-prime crash would never have happened. Because prior to 1997, the government didn't make any direct overt moves to push sub-prime loans, and before 1997, they were a niche market.

Prior to 1997, sub-prime loans were tiny, and the market was flat. There was no real significant growth, until the government got involved in 1997.

No bank was sued to make a bad loan. When you start like this, I stop.

From 1998


"They would not have qualified for loan, but for this affirmative action by the banks."
"To take a greater risk."
"which will be a higher risk, and I'm sure will be a higher default rate than the rest of the portfolio"

HUD being led by Andrew Cuomo,



Bill Clinton, openly saying that the money lent to people who did not qualify, was mostly done under his administration.

Obama 2007 at NASDAQ "Subprime lending started off as a good idea - helping Americans buy homes who couldn't previously afford to."
https://2008election.procon.org/sourcefiles/Obama20070917.pdf

How Obama Bankrupted Black Homeowners | Investor's Business Daily

The pressure worked. In 1994, Clinton's top bank regulators signed a landmark anti-redlining policy that declared traditional mortgage underwriting standards racist and mandated banks apply easier lending rules for minorities.​

John Allison wrote a book:
https://www.amazon.com/Financial-Crisis-Free-Market-Cure/dp/0071806776&tag=ff0d01-20

In this he describes how he was an executive at a bank in the late 90s, and had regulators say that their standards were discriminator, and how they had to change them. The regulators never explained how they were discriminatory, nor what they should do to improve, only that they needed changed.

The fact that the Clinton Administration was suing banks to force them to make bad loans, is beyond debate. It is a documented, video'd, recorded and published fact.

Once again, you have the right to be wrong... .but if you deny this, that's all you are..... is wrong.

 

[pknopp]

I noted the quid pro quo that caused the problems. It has been discussed endlessly.

A quid pro quo caused the mortgage crisis? LOL!

Absolutely. The government removed restrictions and in return the banks made bad loans for the government's benefit to buy votes.

You agree, none of the restrictions would have stopped bad mortgages.

It would have stopped the involvement of customers money.

It wasn't customer money.

Banks basically have two kinds of loans: prime loans and subprime loans. Prime loans are where the bank lends it's own money to the customer. Subprime loans (as the name suggests) are loans that are not as secure as prime loans, therefore the bank only makes money on processing the loan, and then sells it as securities to other entities.

And then there was the investment side.

 

[pknopp]

So you say "almost". We agree there was both sides at fault. Then the only discussion is how much each side is at fault.

Is that really worthy to argue?

Well yes, because I would say 99% was government, and the main "fault" of the banks as it were, was trusting government.

Government was suing banks to make bad loans.
Government was pushing banks to make bad loans.
Government incentivized banks to make bad loans.
Government even required banks to make bad loans in order to get merger approvals.
Government even guaranteed sub-prime loans.

And the problem is, with all this concerted effort to push banks to make bad loans, then you want to point at the banks and say they should not have done that. Well.... while technically true, that is entirely unfair.

Without government intervention, the sub-prime crash would never have happened. Because prior to 1997, the government didn't make any direct overt moves to push sub-prime loans, and before 1997, they were a niche market.

Prior to 1997, sub-prime loans were tiny, and the market was flat. There was no real significant growth, until the government got involved in 1997.

No bank was sued to make a bad loan. When you start like this, I stop.

No bank was sued to make a bad loan.

Baloney. That's how Obama got his start....organizing his community.

Who did Obama sue?

Local banks who didn't make enough loans in black areas.

Suing a local bank made Countrywide, Goldman Sachs, etc make bad loans?

 

[pknopp]

Because that is what got them in trouble? It had nothing to do with packaging bad loans as good investment?

That is what caused the S&L crises?

Sorry for jumping in... but I am not entirely sure what you are talking about.

Do you mean the sub-prime crash of 2007-2009? Because that was almost entirely government caused.

I still disagree with the bailouts (which actually were not a bailout at all), but there is no question it was government caused.

So you say "almost". We agree there was both sides at fault. Then the only discussion is how much each side is at fault.

Is that really worthy to argue?

Well yes, because I would say 99% was government, and the main "fault" of the banks as it were, was trusting government.

Government was suing banks to make bad loans.
Government was pushing banks to make bad loans.
Government incentivized banks to make bad loans.
Government even required banks to make bad loans in order to get merger approvals.
Government even guaranteed sub-prime loans.

And the problem is, with all this concerted effort to push banks to make bad loans, then you want to point at the banks and say they should not have done that. Well.... while technically true, that is entirely unfair.

Without government intervention, the sub-prime crash would never have happened. Because prior to 1997, the government didn't make any direct overt moves to push sub-prime loans, and before 1997, they were a niche market.

Prior to 1997, sub-prime loans were tiny, and the market was flat. There was no real significant growth, until the government got involved in 1997.

No bank was sued to make a bad loan. When you start like this, I stop.

From 1998


"They would not have qualified for loan, but for this affirmative action by the banks."
"To take a greater risk."
"which will be a higher risk, and I'm sure will be a higher default rate than the rest of the portfolio"

HUD being led by Andrew Cuomo,



Bill Clinton, openly saying that the money lent to people who did not qualify, was mostly done under his administration.

Obama 2007 at NASDAQ "Subprime lending started off as a good idea - helping Americans buy homes who couldn't previously afford to."
https://2008election.procon.org/sourcefiles/Obama20070917.pdf

How Obama Bankrupted Black Homeowners | Investor's Business Daily

The pressure worked. In 1994, Clinton's top bank regulators signed a landmark anti-redlining policy that declared traditional mortgage underwriting standards racist and mandated banks apply easier lending rules for minorities.​

John Allison wrote a book:
https://www.amazon.com/Financial-Crisis-Free-Market-Cure/dp/0071806776&tag=ff0d01-20

In this he describes how he was an executive at a bank in the late 90s, and had regulators say that their standards were discriminator, and how they had to change them. The regulators never explained how they were discriminatory, nor what they should do to improve, only that they needed changed.

The fact that the Clinton Administration was suing banks to force them to make bad loans, is beyond debate. It is a documented, video'd, recorded and published fact.

Once again, you have the right to be wrong... .but if you deny this, that's all you are..... is wrong.

I haven't argued that the government didn't push for lower standards. The banks did it when they were freed up and the government gaurantees the loans.

Greenspan said his biggest mistake in trusting that the banks would do the right thing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well yes, because I would say 99% was government, and the main "fault" of the banks as it were, was trusting government.

Government was suing banks to make bad loans.
Government was pushing banks to make bad loans.
Government incentivized banks to make bad loans.
Government even required banks to make bad loans in order to get merger approvals.
Government even guaranteed sub-prime loans.

And the problem is, with all this concerted effort to push banks to make bad loans, then you want to point at the banks and say they should not have done that. Well.... while technically true, that is entirely unfair.

Without government intervention, the sub-prime crash would never have happened. Because prior to 1997, the government didn't make any direct overt moves to push sub-prime loans, and before 1997, they were a niche market.

Prior to 1997, sub-prime loans were tiny, and the market was flat. There was no real significant growth, until the government got involved in 1997.

No bank was sued to make a bad loan. When you start like this, I stop.

No bank was sued to make a bad loan.

Baloney. That's how Obama got his start....organizing his community.

Who did Obama sue?

Local banks who didn't make enough loans in black areas.

Suing a local bank made Countrywide, Goldman Sachs, etc make bad loans?

Nope. Suing a local bank made a local bank write bad mortgages.
While Glass-Stegall was still law......weird.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry for jumping in... but I am not entirely sure what you are talking about.

Do you mean the sub-prime crash of 2007-2009? Because that was almost entirely government caused.

I still disagree with the bailouts (which actually were not a bailout at all), but there is no question it was government caused.

So you say "almost". We agree there was both sides at fault. Then the only discussion is how much each side is at fault.

Is that really worthy to argue?

Well yes, because I would say 99% was government, and the main "fault" of the banks as it were, was trusting government.

Government was suing banks to make bad loans.
Government was pushing banks to make bad loans.
Government incentivized banks to make bad loans.
Government even required banks to make bad loans in order to get merger approvals.
Government even guaranteed sub-prime loans.

And the problem is, with all this concerted effort to push banks to make bad loans, then you want to point at the banks and say they should not have done that. Well.... while technically true, that is entirely unfair.

Without government intervention, the sub-prime crash would never have happened. Because prior to 1997, the government didn't make any direct overt moves to push sub-prime loans, and before 1997, they were a niche market.

Prior to 1997, sub-prime loans were tiny, and the market was flat. There was no real significant growth, until the government got involved in 1997.

No bank was sued to make a bad loan. When you start like this, I stop.

From 1998


"They would not have qualified for loan, but for this affirmative action by the banks."
"To take a greater risk."
"which will be a higher risk, and I'm sure will be a higher default rate than the rest of the portfolio"

HUD being led by Andrew Cuomo,



Bill Clinton, openly saying that the money lent to people who did not qualify, was mostly done under his administration.

Obama 2007 at NASDAQ "Subprime lending started off as a good idea - helping Americans buy homes who couldn't previously afford to."
https://2008election.procon.org/sourcefiles/Obama20070917.pdf

How Obama Bankrupted Black Homeowners | Investor's Business Daily

The pressure worked. In 1994, Clinton's top bank regulators signed a landmark anti-redlining policy that declared traditional mortgage underwriting standards racist and mandated banks apply easier lending rules for minorities.​

John Allison wrote a book:
https://www.amazon.com/Financial-Crisis-Free-Market-Cure/dp/0071806776&tag=ff0d01-20

In this he describes how he was an executive at a bank in the late 90s, and had regulators say that their standards were discriminator, and how they had to change them. The regulators never explained how they were discriminatory, nor what they should do to improve, only that they needed changed.

The fact that the Clinton Administration was suing banks to force them to make bad loans, is beyond debate. It is a documented, video'd, recorded and published fact.

Once again, you have the right to be wrong... .but if you deny this, that's all you are..... is wrong.

I haven't argued that the government didn't push for lower standards. The banks did it when they were freed up and the government gaurantees the loans.

Greenspan said his biggest mistake in trusting that the banks would do the right thing.

The banks did it when they were freed up and the government gaurantees the loans.

The government guaranteed bad loans?

 

[francoHFW]

Leftists absolutely hate the poor and lower middle class. They have to keep them down.
This comes as no surprise.

funny how the last 30 years of GOP control of tax rates and policy, we now have the worst inequality and upward Mobility ever anywhere in the modern world. Great job, super duper. You may get taxed a tiny bit but your health care will be free dumbass lol. The rich are going to pay for this mainly. Right now we have a flat tax system, the height of greed and stupidity...

Even blacks are buying $15M mansions on the beach!

Ever heard of statistics and reality or do you just have stupid bumper sticker idiocy?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Does that mean you'd prefer that government make the call instead?

Which call? Whether they fail or not? No.

Don't be coy. You think government should "regulate" the banks decision, right?

Which decisions?

Heh. No, I'm not going to chase you around the mulberry bush.

I'm suppose to know what "regulate the banks decisions" is suppose to mean? It could mean a hundred things.

The phrase is "supposed to". You need the "d".

 

[francoHFW]

Leftists absolutely hate the poor and lower middle class. They have to keep them down.
This comes as no surprise.

funny how the last 30 years of GOP control of tax rates and policy, we now have the worst inequality and upward Mobility ever anywhere in the modern world. Great job, super duper. You may get taxed a tiny bit but your health care will be free dumbass lol. The rich are going to pay for this mainly. Right now we have a flat tax system, the height of greed and stupidity...

Funny how $14/hr is now considered wealthy and suitable for tax hikes.

Probably $5 a month for guaranteed free healthcare at that point, brainwash functional moron.had we might finally be able to go after the ridiculous costs that are the real problem after having a GOP scam Health system forever..

 

[Andylusion]

Are the too-big-to-fail banks too big or what?

Dodd/Frank made the too big to fail banks even bigger.

That's kind of our point. No amount of regulations, is going to solve anything. In fact, regulations generally make the problem worse, which you pointed out.

Regulations inherently make the companies they are created to supposedly reign in... larger and more out of control.

Allow me to explain....

Regulations are very expensive, and at the same time, they reduce the ability of the companies to create new products.

So I'm a big mega-bank. You are a smaller bank. Between the two of us, which one has the money to spend in order to meet the regulations? I do. I have hundreds of billions. You are a small bank chain, and likely don't have billions to spend meeting regulations.

Additionally, between the two of us, which one needs to create diverse new products to attract customers? You do. I do not. I'm a mega bank. Customers will come to me on name brand alone. You are the one who has to attract customers with new products.

The regulations will both harm your ability to create new products, and will cost you tons of money you don't have in order to be compliant.

So you facing these huge costs and challenges, may just determine to sell out to me. You sell off to me, and I become larger and more profitable, because now there is less competition.

And you can see this throughout the entire economy. In states that have the tightest regulations, you often see the fewest insurance companies, for example.

When they passed the net neutrality regulations, the first thing that happened was a wave of mergers across the country. Comcast today is vastly larger than they were before those regulations passed.

Indeed, every time there is a wave of regulations, what follows is a decline in public choices as companies sell out and merge. Go look at the auto industry before the regulations of the 1970s. There were many separate companies. By the 1990s, it was just GM, Ford and Chrysler.

The solution to having these massive banks, is actually to deregulate, and allow more free competition. Competitors will rise up where the large banks fail, and the market will end up more diverse.

Bull. Without regulations and oversite Trump would still be stealing from his charity.

A competitor can't rise up to compete with Goldman Sachs. Impossible.

Right now it's impossible.... because all the regulations make it impossible.

No, regulations does not prevent stealing from a charity. AOC was using campaign money, funneled through a front company, to her boyfriend. Why didn't the regulations prevent that?

Franklin Raines was cooking the books at Fannie Mae, and fabricated a profit where there was none, so that they could trigger executive bonuses.

Enron, Bernie Madoff... the list of examples where people engaged in fraud and money laundering while under heavy regulation is endless.

Nothing can somehow "prevent" crime. What you can do is have laws against fraud.... and then punish people caught engaging in fraud.

I'm all in favor of more law enforcement. 100% support more law enforcement.

However, regulations do not prevent crime. All they do, is allow the rich to hold down the poor. That's it. No regulation anywhere has ever stopped a crime.

No regulations do not stop corruption. There wi always be people who think they can get by with it.

Regulations allow the oversite that catches the corruption.

I disagree with that too. If the oversight worked..... again.... Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Enron, AOC, Madoff.

You know who caught Madoff? Outside investors who kept looking at the returns, and saying it isn't possible. Enron, you know who caught Enron? No one, they went bankrupt.

In fact, from what I've read elsewhere, Enron was particularly damning, because Enron used the regulations to their benefit, to conceal the fraud. When the executives met with bond holders, who said to Jeff Skilling that it appeared Enron was hiding something, Skillings reply was that they had filed with the SEC and followed all the regulations. As a result the fraud was concealed, and the bond holders accepted that.

So I see little evidence that oversight does anything. When evidence of fraud comes up, they investigate, just like they would investigate any fraud, without any regulations, or any oversight.

I'm not against oversight so much..... I just think law enforcement does a better job of oversight, than the supposed oversight agencies.

But regardless, I still see the regulations do far more harm than good. I see little that they stop any crime from happening, and a ton that it holds the poor down, so the rich and stay above.

 

[RealDave]

All you rich folks making $14 an hour need to bear the burden.

Sanders: Families Making $29,000 Will ‘Pay More In Taxes’ For Medicare For All - The Partnership for America’s Health Care Future

What do families making $29K pay in taxes now?

More Republican bullshit in action.

What do families making $29k a year pay in premiums, co-pays, coinsurance & deductibles today?

A family of four with a wage earner working full time might get 75% of his premiums covered by his employer. Say that policy cost $1200 a month, $2,000 deductible, with office visits , precriptions, etc typical.

That family will pay $3600.00 a year its share of the premiums, could be $1000 in deductables and 400 hundred in copays. That is $5000. As as any tax increase is less that $5K, they are ahead with medicare for all.

In reality their tax increase would be far less.

This is what you lying assfucks don't get.

Plus, no more sweating out this time of year to see what kind of policy you will get next year, no more worrying what the new premium cost will be, worrying if your doctor is in the network.

The idea you Trumpettes keep whiling is proof you are dumber than shit & just bitching because it is a Democrat idea.

You'd rather pay more out of pocket & fight with the insurance companies

But het, you voted for Trump & I guess that makes you that fucking stupid.