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

[pknopp]

The Left must always “trickle down” its definition of “wealthy” to pay for their programs.

At least there is a plan to actually pay for the programs.

Correct. Last time they were in charge, they put us 10 trillion dollars in more debt for their programs. Some plan.

See, you can't discuss this honestly. This is about Sanders idea on health care and how he will pay for it. It is not about "they". People like yourself can not discuss anything without trying to throw in things that are not even relevant and as I note above, massively hypocritical.

 

[pknopp]

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.

Yes, regulators were tipped off and ignored all warnings. I don't disagree with that. There should have been a mass firing. They did not do their job.

I argue all the time that laws and regulations not enforced really are worthless. About like our current laws concerning the hiring of illegals.

It's not something we should accept. To note though, without them Maddoff is a free man.

Bull. I disagree. Bernie Madoff was engaged in fraud. Fraud is illegal. Fraud is not a regulation. Fraud is a violation of law. You can not tell people that you are going to use their money to purchase assets on their behalf, and then use it to pay previous investor, not buying any assets. You cannot tell people you are paying them dividends from their investments, when there are no investments, and you are paying them from new investors.

You would not need a single regulation anywhere on the planet, to determine Bernie was engaged in Fraud, and prosecute him on that Fraud, and toss his con-man butt in jail for life.

Yes, regulators were tipped off and ignored all warnings.

Which leads to another problem. You touched on a completely different issue, and extremely valid.

I would still suggest that whether regulations are enforced or not, they only have negative consequences. Regulations are used by the big companies, to shut out the little companies. Additionally, regulations are used by the wealthy, to oppress the poor.

The rich have the ability to pay the cost of regulations. Small competitors do not. Regulations shut out the small companies, to enrich the large ones.

Regulations make the rich richer, and the poor poorer.

The rich also have the ability to influence government regulations, where the poor do not. Whether they rent the Lincoln bedroom from Bill Clinton, or they pay $32,000 for a private dinner with Obama, or any of the millions of other ways... they can easily slip in specific regulations or exemptions that benefit them.

Do you have any idea just how much regulations we have on banks?

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Bank Regulations
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) Banking Regulations
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Banking Regulations
Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) Banking Regulations
Federal Reserve Board (FRB) Banking Regulations
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Banking Regulations
National Credit Union Administration Banking Regulations
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) Banking Regulations
Department of Justice (DOJ) Banking Regulations
US Department of the Treasury Banking Regulations

Those are JUST the Federal level regulatory agencies.

Lawriter - ORC - Title [11] XI FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
This is the Ohio code regarding banks.
You'll notice the last one is:
DIVISION OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Which is part of the Ohio Department of Commerce, which has their own regulations on banks.

Let us even simplify this.... Let us look at just one single bank law. Dodd-Frank.

This bill was over 850 pages long. This bill also amended the following existing acts:
Commodity Exchange Act
Consumer Credit Protection Act
Federal Deposit Insurance Act
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991
Federal Reserve Act
Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989
International Banking Act of 1978
Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act
Revised Statutes of the United States
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Truth in Lending Act

The "summery" page of this act, is 40 pages long. This bill went through 9 different committees, each I'm sure with their own lobbying efforts.

House Agriculture 12/02/2009 Referred to
House Financial Services 12/02/2009 Referred to
House Energy and Commerce 12/02/2009 Referred to
House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection 12/03/2009 Referred to
House Judiciary 12/02/2009 Referred to
House Rules 12/02/2009 Referred to
House Budget 12/02/2009 Referred to
House Oversight and Government Reform 12/02/2009 Referred to
House Ways and Means 12/02/2009 Referred to
Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

Look at all the committees, one banking law had to go through, each adding their own special interest regulations.

And what is in all those thousands of pages? Exemptions. What did you think was in all those regulations?

Takes you five seconds to do a search for the word "exempt", and find hundreds of examples throughout the legislation.

Exemptions.--If the Board of Governors determines that
an exemption from the requirement under paragraph (1) is
appropriate, the Board of Governors may exempt a company, or any
transaction or transactions engaged in by such company, from the
requirements of paragraph (1).

Hmmm.... board of governors can just issue an exemption at will? And who do you think carries enough influence to make that happen? The small startup bank, or the massive mega bank, that just spent $32,000 to have dinner with Obama?

You tell me.

That is one of thousands of exemptions. THOUSANDS. And don't play this game, that this is just Dodd-Frank.... I can pull up any banking regulation you want, and find exemptions all over the place, as each bill goes through a half dozen committees.

And let's talk about the regulators themselves.



In this video, at 3:21, Rep Shays points out that most of the people in the very hearing on oversight, were all getting paid by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Now we're not even talking about private banks somewhere.... we're talking about banks directly run and operated by the government. The CEO of Frannie Mae was Franklin Raines, who was appointed by Clinton as Director of the Office of Budget and Management.

And let's talk more generally about oversight.... All oversight is going to be manipulated by the people they have oversight over. That's normal. That's natural. And I would say that is unavoidable.

You might, ask, why would it be unavoidable? It's real simple.

Do you really know how banking works? No. I don't either. I know the fundamentals, but I couldn't run a bank. What do you think a bunch of appointed bureaucrats in Washington know about running a bank? Nothing. Take Franklin Raines. He was appointed to everything. The man never held a job in his life, that wasn't either in an Ivory tower, or in a tax payer funded position. It's not a surprise that Fannie Mae failed completely after his guidance.

Most people in government, couldn't operate a lemonade stand. So when you see Shays saying at 4:35 in the video above, that Fannie Mae had been manipulating OFHEO for years, my response is of course. These are politicians. They don't know anything. Even Franklin Raines says later in that video that these house mortgages are "risk-less", just a few years before Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac became the two most expensive bailouts of the entire sub-prime crash.

So when these know-nothing bureaucrats in charge of oversight, realize they have no idea what they are doing, who do you think they are going to go to for advice?...... the very people they are in charge of oversight over. After Deepwater Horizon, who did they talk to about what new 'safety regulations' they should create? Oil companies. When they were trying to come up with insurance regulations for ObamaCare, who did they talk to? Insurance companies. After the 2008 crash, who did they consult about Dodd-Frank? Banks.

And if you doubt that, then I have a challenge for you. Name one oversight agency that does not have people either on the committee from the companies they oversight, or does not have people now working in those companies, originally from the oversight agency.

You can't.

This is natural. This is normal. This is unavoidable. There will never be a time, where any oversight agency, is not influenced by the people they have oversight over.

Let me put it another way... If your wage in life, was controlled by a guy down the street who is on city counsel.... You would make it a point to meet that guy, and talk with him over lunch. We all would. I would, absolutely. That guy determines if I ever earn more money for the rest of my life? Yeah, I'm going to meet up with him.

The regulators have the ability to control millions, and billions of dollars that companies can earn. They are GOING to find a way to influence those regulators. And it doesn't matter what system you have. Socialist system, capitalist system, whatever system you have, if you have a group of people that control a hundred billion dollar industry, they are going to find a way to influence that group of people. Again, Fannie Mae was a government run company, influencing a government run oversight. Don't sit there and pretend that if only we were less Capitalist, things would be different. Not true.

My point again.... regulations solve nothing. Never have. Never will.

I argued that regulations are used to shut out the little guy. I noted that is exactly what Dodd/Frank did. You are arguing that because that regulatory bill was bad, hence all must be bad. That is no different than arguing that a plane crashed so all planes are going to crash.

Regulations also can stop a big business from taking over all the little ones. Regulations stop a business from simply poring it's waste into a river.

Now I will agree that we often times pass regulations and then do nothing to enforce them. That should not be acceptable but it is for millions as long as the party not doing the enforcing has the same letter after their name that they support.

Why the "left" allowed Obama to lie to them and not prosecute a single banker that broke our laws ( and many did every bit as much as Maddoff) is beyond me. Timmy Geithner said it would be bad for the economy to actually start arresting them. People should have demanded his resignation when he said that.

Regulations without enforcement are no different than not having regulations so you have that.

 

[LeftofLeft]

The Left must always “trickle down” its definition of “wealthy” to pay for their programs.

At least there is a plan to actually pay for the programs.

Bullshit. The Left lies to the Middle Class by telling them it is the “wealthy” that will be taxed yet somehow someone making $29k per year is now “wealthy”? That’s your plan? How come plans from your side rarely, if ever, include “cut spending?”

"The left". We are not discussing anyone other than Sanders. Sanders has always had a plan to pay for everything he proposes. Not that you have any room to talk considering the furthering of the debt under Trump.

Sanders’ plan is simply to tax the shit out of anything and everything that loves with no regard to budget. Further, the attacks on Trump for failure to reduce the debt are rooted more in “gotcha” vs. a commitment or alternative to reducing the debt. Taxing everyone and at higher rates with no cuts in spending will not scale.

 

[pknopp]

The Left must always “trickle down” its definition of “wealthy” to pay for their programs.

At least there is a plan to actually pay for the programs.

Bullshit. The Left lies to the Middle Class by telling them it is the “wealthy” that will be taxed yet somehow someone making $29k per year is now “wealthy”? That’s your plan? How come plans from your side rarely, if ever, include “cut spending?”

"The left". We are not discussing anyone other than Sanders. Sanders has always had a plan to pay for everything he proposes. Not that you have any room to talk considering the furthering of the debt under Trump.

Sanders’ plan is simply to tax the shit out of anything and everything that loves with no regard to budget. Further, the attacks on Trump for failure to reduce the debt are rooted more in “gotcha” vs. a commitment or alternative to reducing the debt. Taxing everyone and at higher rates with no cuts in spending will not scale.

Sorry, Trump didn't run on reducing the debt? As I've pointed out over and over and over we are paying for health care anyway. Why do you have a problem with getting more that are not paying in at least paying something?

 

[LeftofLeft]

The Left must always “trickle down” its definition of “wealthy” to pay for their programs.

At least there is a plan to actually pay for the programs.

Bullshit. The Left lies to the Middle Class by telling them it is the “wealthy” that will be taxed yet somehow someone making $29k per year is now “wealthy”? That’s your plan? How come plans from your side rarely, if ever, include “cut spending?”

"The left". We are not discussing anyone other than Sanders. Sanders has always had a plan to pay for everything he proposes. Not that you have any room to talk considering the furthering of the debt under Trump.

Sanders’ plan is simply to tax the shit out of anything and everything that loves with no regard to budget. Further, the attacks on Trump for failure to reduce the debt are rooted more in “gotcha” vs. a commitment or alternative to reducing the debt. Taxing everyone and at higher rates with no cuts in spending will not scale.

Sorry, Trump didn't run on reducing the debt? As I've pointed out over and over and over we are paying for health care anyway. Why do you have a problem with getting more that are not paying in at least paying something?

Trump being called out for failure to reduce the debt is not the same as solving the debt problem. That is what I have a problem with. Further, I take issue with any and all plans that don’t include spending cuts..

 

[pknopp]

At least there is a plan to actually pay for the programs.

Bullshit. The Left lies to the Middle Class by telling them it is the “wealthy” that will be taxed yet somehow someone making $29k per year is now “wealthy”? That’s your plan? How come plans from your side rarely, if ever, include “cut spending?”

"The left". We are not discussing anyone other than Sanders. Sanders has always had a plan to pay for everything he proposes. Not that you have any room to talk considering the furthering of the debt under Trump.

Sanders’ plan is simply to tax the shit out of anything and everything that loves with no regard to budget. Further, the attacks on Trump for failure to reduce the debt are rooted more in “gotcha” vs. a commitment or alternative to reducing the debt. Taxing everyone and at higher rates with no cuts in spending will not scale.

Sorry, Trump didn't run on reducing the debt? As I've pointed out over and over and over we are paying for health care anyway. Why do you have a problem with getting more that are not paying in at least paying something?

Trump being called out for failure to reduce the debt is not the same as solving the debt problem. That is what I have a problem with. Further, I take issue with any and all plans that don’t include spending cuts..

But yet you will vote again for the path that will take us to $30 trillion in debt?

 

[Grumblenuts]

I take issue with any and all plans that don’t include spending cuts..

Given inflation that's mighty big of you. Do you also tell WalMart you take issue with any and all prices that aren't less than those of last year?

 

[pknopp]

I take issue with any and all plans that don’t include spending cuts..

Given inflation that's mighty big of you. Do you also tell WalMart you take issue with any and all prices that aren't less than those of last year?

We could cut spending without cutting a single service.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I take issue with any and all plans that don’t include spending cuts..

Given inflation that's mighty big of you. Do you also tell WalMart you take issue with any and all prices that aren't less than those of last year?

We could cut spending without cutting a single service.

We could cut service without cutting any spending...

 

[pknopp]

I take issue with any and all plans that don’t include spending cuts..

Given inflation that's mighty big of you. Do you also tell WalMart you take issue with any and all prices that aren't less than those of last year?

We could cut spending without cutting a single service.

We could cut service without cutting any spending...

We could. Are you arguing for that? I'm not.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I take issue with any and all plans that don’t include spending cuts..

Given inflation that's mighty big of you. Do you also tell WalMart you take issue with any and all prices that aren't less than those of last year?

We could cut spending without cutting a single service.

We could cut service without cutting any spending...

We could. Are you arguing for that? I'm not.

Naw, I just thought silly assertions were the new normal.

 

[22lcidw]

The Left must always “trickle down” its definition of “wealthy” to pay for their programs.

At least there is a plan to actually pay for the programs.

Bullshit. The Left lies to the Middle Class by telling them it is the “wealthy” that will be taxed yet somehow someone making $29k per year is now “wealthy”? That’s your plan? How come plans from your side rarely, if ever, include “cut spending?”

"The left". We are not discussing anyone other than Sanders. Sanders has always had a plan to pay for everything he proposes. Not that you have any room to talk considering the furthering of the debt under Trump.

Sanders’ plan is simply to tax the shit out of anything and everything that loves with no regard to budget. Further, the attacks on Trump for failure to reduce the debt are rooted more in “gotcha” vs. a commitment or alternative to reducing the debt. Taxing everyone and at higher rates with no cuts in spending will not scale.

Sorry, Trump didn't run on reducing the debt? As I've pointed out over and over and over we are paying for health care anyway. Why do you have a problem with getting more that are not paying in at least paying something?

Those who take care of themselves health wise are penalized. Those who are responsible in other things of living over and over are penalized. You make it sound so simple and nice. We are charged in everything we experience to pay others off. Now there may be reasons to help others and we may all need what you spew. Progs have made people look like low lifes for disagreeing with them. You will have restrictions one day on everything we do to get the benefits of prog socialism communism. And death will be part of the equation.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

Yes, regulators were tipped off and ignored all warnings. I don't disagree with that. There should have been a mass firing. They did not do their job.

I argue all the time that laws and regulations not enforced really are worthless. About like our current laws concerning the hiring of illegals.

It's not something we should accept. To note though, without them Maddoff is a free man.

Bull. I disagree. Bernie Madoff was engaged in fraud. Fraud is illegal. Fraud is not a regulation. Fraud is a violation of law. You can not tell people that you are going to use their money to purchase assets on their behalf, and then use it to pay previous investor, not buying any assets. You cannot tell people you are paying them dividends from their investments, when there are no investments, and you are paying them from new investors.

You would not need a single regulation anywhere on the planet, to determine Bernie was engaged in Fraud, and prosecute him on that Fraud, and toss his con-man butt in jail for life.

Yes, regulators were tipped off and ignored all warnings.

Which leads to another problem. You touched on a completely different issue, and extremely valid.

I would still suggest that whether regulations are enforced or not, they only have negative consequences. Regulations are used by the big companies, to shut out the little companies. Additionally, regulations are used by the wealthy, to oppress the poor.

The rich have the ability to pay the cost of regulations. Small competitors do not. Regulations shut out the small companies, to enrich the large ones.

Regulations make the rich richer, and the poor poorer.

The rich also have the ability to influence government regulations, where the poor do not. Whether they rent the Lincoln bedroom from Bill Clinton, or they pay $32,000 for a private dinner with Obama, or any of the millions of other ways... they can easily slip in specific regulations or exemptions that benefit them.

Do you have any idea just how much regulations we have on banks?

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Bank Regulations
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) Banking Regulations
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Banking Regulations
Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) Banking Regulations
Federal Reserve Board (FRB) Banking Regulations
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Banking Regulations
National Credit Union Administration Banking Regulations
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) Banking Regulations
Department of Justice (DOJ) Banking Regulations
US Department of the Treasury Banking Regulations

Those are JUST the Federal level regulatory agencies.

Lawriter - ORC - Title [11] XI FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
This is the Ohio code regarding banks.
You'll notice the last one is:
DIVISION OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Which is part of the Ohio Department of Commerce, which has their own regulations on banks.

Let us even simplify this.... Let us look at just one single bank law. Dodd-Frank.

This bill was over 850 pages long. This bill also amended the following existing acts:
Commodity Exchange Act
Consumer Credit Protection Act
Federal Deposit Insurance Act
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991
Federal Reserve Act
Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989
International Banking Act of 1978
Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act
Revised Statutes of the United States
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Truth in Lending Act

The "summery" page of this act, is 40 pages long. This bill went through 9 different committees, each I'm sure with their own lobbying efforts.

House Agriculture 12/02/2009 Referred to
House Financial Services 12/02/2009 Referred to
House Energy and Commerce 12/02/2009 Referred to
House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection 12/03/2009 Referred to
House Judiciary 12/02/2009 Referred to
House Rules 12/02/2009 Referred to
House Budget 12/02/2009 Referred to
House Oversight and Government Reform 12/02/2009 Referred to
House Ways and Means 12/02/2009 Referred to
Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

Look at all the committees, one banking law had to go through, each adding their own special interest regulations.

And what is in all those thousands of pages? Exemptions. What did you think was in all those regulations?

Takes you five seconds to do a search for the word "exempt", and find hundreds of examples throughout the legislation.

Exemptions.--If the Board of Governors determines that
an exemption from the requirement under paragraph (1) is
appropriate, the Board of Governors may exempt a company, or any
transaction or transactions engaged in by such company, from the
requirements of paragraph (1).

Hmmm.... board of governors can just issue an exemption at will? And who do you think carries enough influence to make that happen? The small startup bank, or the massive mega bank, that just spent $32,000 to have dinner with Obama?

You tell me.

That is one of thousands of exemptions. THOUSANDS. And don't play this game, that this is just Dodd-Frank.... I can pull up any banking regulation you want, and find exemptions all over the place, as each bill goes through a half dozen committees.

And let's talk about the regulators themselves.



In this video, at 3:21, Rep Shays points out that most of the people in the very hearing on oversight, were all getting paid by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Now we're not even talking about private banks somewhere.... we're talking about banks directly run and operated by the government. The CEO of Frannie Mae was Franklin Raines, who was appointed by Clinton as Director of the Office of Budget and Management.

And let's talk more generally about oversight.... All oversight is going to be manipulated by the people they have oversight over. That's normal. That's natural. And I would say that is unavoidable.

You might, ask, why would it be unavoidable? It's real simple.

Do you really know how banking works? No. I don't either. I know the fundamentals, but I couldn't run a bank. What do you think a bunch of appointed bureaucrats in Washington know about running a bank? Nothing. Take Franklin Raines. He was appointed to everything. The man never held a job in his life, that wasn't either in an Ivory tower, or in a tax payer funded position. It's not a surprise that Fannie Mae failed completely after his guidance.

Most people in government, couldn't operate a lemonade stand. So when you see Shays saying at 4:35 in the video above, that Fannie Mae had been manipulating OFHEO for years, my response is of course. These are politicians. They don't know anything. Even Franklin Raines says later in that video that these house mortgages are "risk-less", just a few years before Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac became the two most expensive bailouts of the entire sub-prime crash.

So when these know-nothing bureaucrats in charge of oversight, realize they have no idea what they are doing, who do you think they are going to go to for advice?...... the very people they are in charge of oversight over. After Deepwater Horizon, who did they talk to about what new 'safety regulations' they should create? Oil companies. When they were trying to come up with insurance regulations for ObamaCare, who did they talk to? Insurance companies. After the 2008 crash, who did they consult about Dodd-Frank? Banks.

And if you doubt that, then I have a challenge for you. Name one oversight agency that does not have people either on the committee from the companies they oversight, or does not have people now working in those companies, originally from the oversight agency.

You can't.

This is natural. This is normal. This is unavoidable. There will never be a time, where any oversight agency, is not influenced by the people they have oversight over.

Let me put it another way... If your wage in life, was controlled by a guy down the street who is on city counsel.... You would make it a point to meet that guy, and talk with him over lunch. We all would. I would, absolutely. That guy determines if I ever earn more money for the rest of my life? Yeah, I'm going to meet up with him.

The regulators have the ability to control millions, and billions of dollars that companies can earn. They are GOING to find a way to influence those regulators. And it doesn't matter what system you have. Socialist system, capitalist system, whatever system you have, if you have a group of people that control a hundred billion dollar industry, they are going to find a way to influence that group of people. Again, Fannie Mae was a government run company, influencing a government run oversight. Don't sit there and pretend that if only we were less Capitalist, things would be different. Not true.

My point again.... regulations solve nothing. Never have. Never will.

I argued that regulations are used to shut out the little guy. I noted that is exactly what Dodd/Frank did. You are arguing that because that regulatory bill was bad, hence all must be bad. That is no different than arguing that a plane crashed so all planes are going to crash.

Regulations also can stop a big business from taking over all the little ones. Regulations stop a business from simply poring it's waste into a river.

Now I will agree that we often times pass regulations and then do nothing to enforce them. That should not be acceptable but it is for millions as long as the party not doing the enforcing has the same letter after their name that they support.

Why the "left" allowed Obama to lie to them and not prosecute a single banker that broke our laws ( and many did every bit as much as Maddoff) is beyond me. Timmy Geithner said it would be bad for the economy to actually start arresting them. People should have demanded his resignation when he said that.

Regulations without enforcement are no different than not having regulations so you have that.

Well yes.... Dodd Frank had the typical results that all regulations have. I'm not arguing that "that" bill was bad, so they are all bad..... I'm saying all regulations have the same results, and Dodd Frank followed the typical pattern that all regulations have resulted in.

That is no different than arguing that a plane crashed so all planes are going to crash.

Not so much.... more like, after trying the same failed policies a hundred times, expecting a different result is basically insanity.
We've played it your way, with endless regulations, and they never once did anything of value. To continue on that path, and expect a magically good result, is foolish.

Regulations also can stop a big business from taking over all the little ones. Regulations stop a business from simply poring it's waste into a river.

I would be hard pressed to think of a single example, where regulations prevented big business from driving out small business in the long term. In short term, for political show, you might see that. But over the long view, no.

Give me an example?

As for dumping waste into the river, I'm all for local city and states to issue whatever controls on waste they want.

There is a huge difference between having two people voluntarily engage in a transaction, and the government stepping in and saying "we don't like that perfectly legal product that both of you have engaged in a transaction over. You need to do it our way".....

and having your neighbor dump his trash in your yard. Do you see the difference?

Here's my problem though. By most everything I've read, the EPA has been a disaster. From idiotic requirements that Arsenic in the waste water, be at a lower level than is natural in nature, to issuing fees for a backed up sewer drain during a flood, to massive amounts of money wasted on clean up projects, to even lowering existing pollution agreements.

I could list off dozens of examples. The local egg farm here, was fined by the EPA for pollution. Turns out there was a massive rain storm, which caused the river to rise. The river rose high enough, it backed up the sewer to the egg farm. The sewer water went out an overflow, which is exactly how the city designed the overflow to work, so it would not back up people's homes. The EPA fined them because the waste water went out the over flow, during a heavy storm, which was exactly how the system was supposed to work!

I was reading about a clean up site at a defunct factory. After extensive testing, they found there was enough residue in the ground at the abandoned plant, that a child (not an adult), a child could eat dirt on the property for a week, and could likely get sick. After a massive cleanup effort, they tested again and found a child could eat dirt on the property for a couple of months, and then get sick. After much money spending, and pouring more tax money into a clean up effort, they found a child could eat dirt on the property for a year, and then get sick.

Where the heck are these dirt glutton children, whose parents allow them to go to the industrial section of town, climb fences into abandoned factories, and apparently feed them so terribly that they start shoveling dirt into their face?

You know why that happened? It wasn't because there was any significant health risk. Not at all. It was because when other people are paying the bill.... (the tax payer)... and you have invested interest in the spending (the billion dollar contractors swimming in the EPA money), it's pretty easy to justify "It's for the children!".

So again.... I have no problem with controls on what to do with waste, as opposed to regulations on legitimate actions. Huge difference between government just saying they don't like how you make a perfectly fine product, and with you dumping trash on your neighbors property.

That said, I think the EPA should be eliminated, or redefined to a very limited scope.

You mentioned rivers, and I think the best system I've heard of, is the system in Germany. They don't have a mass of federal government regulations on rivers.... but rather they found more of a free-market capitalist solution. Instead, they have the rivers incorporated. The river itself, is run like a company. Other companies pay for use of the river. Equally companies pay for how much waste they put into the river. Then they have ways for companies to reduce their fees, by reducing pollution themselves. The river company will test each section of river, to see how much pollution there is, and levy fees based on that. If the company on the other hand, finds a way to reduce pollution levels themselves, that is cheaper than the fees, then they are free to do that.

I think the system is brilliant.... which is the exact opposite of the EPA. What does a bureaucrat at the EPA, appointed by a know-nothing politician, know about what needs to be done to a river in Montanan? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Stop with the idiotic regulations from on high, that never solve anything. Let the people of each state, run their state. Ideally, we should embrace capitalism and incorporate rivers like Germany. Seems more than obvious that a company operating the river, would known infinitely more what would work best for that river, than some idiot in Washington, getting lobby money from clean up contractors, for millions in tax dollars.

 

[pknopp]

I take issue with any and all plans that don’t include spending cuts..

Given inflation that's mighty big of you. Do you also tell WalMart you take issue with any and all prices that aren't less than those of last year?

We could cut spending without cutting a single service.

We could cut service without cutting any spending...

We could. Are you arguing for that? I'm not.

Naw, I just thought silly assertions were the new normal.

Mine was not. We have a ton of overlap in the government. A ton of waste. Is there a reason you would be against addressing that?

 

[LeftofLeft]

I take issue with any and all plans that don’t include spending cuts..

Given inflation that's mighty big of you. Do you also tell WalMart you take issue with any and all prices that aren't less than those of last year?

When your personal debt is rising, do you not cut spending or does your increase in spending result in debt reduction? How?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Given inflation that's mighty big of you. Do you also tell WalMart you take issue with any and all prices that aren't less than those of last year?

We could cut spending without cutting a single service.

We could cut service without cutting any spending...

We could. Are you arguing for that? I'm not.

Naw, I just thought silly assertions were the new normal.

Mine was not. We have a ton of overlap in the government. A ton of waste. Is there a reason you would be against addressing that?

Of course not. "Cutting spending" is just straw man distraction though like so many others. Medicare For All obviously includes huge "spending cuts" along with increases. The devil's always in the details. An opposing plan, given a serious one were ever submitted, would obviously contain the same.

 

[pknopp]

At least there is a plan to actually pay for the programs.

Bullshit. The Left lies to the Middle Class by telling them it is the “wealthy” that will be taxed yet somehow someone making $29k per year is now “wealthy”? That’s your plan? How come plans from your side rarely, if ever, include “cut spending?”

"The left". We are not discussing anyone other than Sanders. Sanders has always had a plan to pay for everything he proposes. Not that you have any room to talk considering the furthering of the debt under Trump.

Sanders’ plan is simply to tax the shit out of anything and everything that loves with no regard to budget. Further, the attacks on Trump for failure to reduce the debt are rooted more in “gotcha” vs. a commitment or alternative to reducing the debt. Taxing everyone and at higher rates with no cuts in spending will not scale.

Sorry, Trump didn't run on reducing the debt? As I've pointed out over and over and over we are paying for health care anyway. Why do you have a problem with getting more that are not paying in at least paying something?

Those who take care of themselves health wise are penalized. Those who are responsible in other things of living over and over are penalized. You make it sound so simple and nice. We are charged in everything we experience to pay others off. Now there may be reasons to help others and we may all need what you spew. Progs have made people look like low lifes for disagreeing with them. You will have restrictions one day on everything we do to get the benefits of prog socialism communism. And death will be part of the equation.

Odd, you agree with me on the bolded part but felt you still had to go on your rant.

 

[LeftofLeft]

We could cut spending without cutting a single service.

We could cut service without cutting any spending...

We could. Are you arguing for that? I'm not.

Naw, I just thought silly assertions were the new normal.

Mine was not. We have a ton of overlap in the government. A ton of waste. Is there a reason you would be against addressing that?

Of course not. "Cutting spending" is just straw man distraction though like so many others. Medicare For All obviously includes huge "spending cuts" along with increases. The devil's always in the details. An opposing plan, given a serious one were ever submitted, would obviously contain the same.

Non-Conservatives rarely consider spending cuts so I am not sure where and how “straw man” would apply.

 

[flack]

We could cut spending without cutting a single service.

We could cut service without cutting any spending...

We could. Are you arguing for that? I'm not.

Naw, I just thought silly assertions were the new normal.

Mine was not. We have a ton of overlap in the government. A ton of waste. Is there a reason you would be against addressing that?

Of course not. "Cutting spending" is just straw man distraction though like so many others. Medicare For All obviously includes huge "spending cuts" along with increases. The devil's always in the details. An opposing plan, given a serious one were ever submitted, would obviously contain the same.

Answer me this? Elizabeth Warren Medicare for all plan calls for spending $5.2 trillion a year on healthcare. In 2018 the federal government spent $4.1 trillion for everything. All of it. So you are telling me that we are going to jump from $4.1 trillion to $9.3 trillion and you think there is money out there to do that?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Non-Conservatives rarely consider spending cuts

That's self-delusion. We're all both liberal and conservative by nature and necessity. Everyone budgets, except idiots like Trump.