This time they should shut it down.

[francoHFW]

First you wrote in post #1:

There's nothing major at risk here. Shut it down.

Then, in post #39 you wrote:

Does anyone know what would actually be "shut down" if this bill doesn't pass?

So, which is it?

You don't know? That's what I'm trying to figure out, whether anyone actually knows what will and will not be "shut down" if this bill fails in the Senate. I don't think most people do. It seems that "government shutdown" has become just another panic term, along with communism and global warming.

is this really something good that any of us should hang our hats on?

The swap provision she references would allow Wall Street banks to trade risky financial derivatives from subsidiaries that are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. -- potentially putting taxpayers on the hook for losses. Big banks traded derivatives from these FDIC-backed units in the years leading up to the 2008 crash, but the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law required them to move many of the transactions to other subsidiaries that are not insured by taxpayers. Banks receive higher credit ratings for derivatives they sell from taxpayer-backed units, which in turn makes the derivatives more profitable.

Be honest, please.

What was bad is that it did not include Fannie and Freddie.There are exempt from the bill

Were NEVER the problem. Their share of the market went from 75% to 25% in 2003 when Booshie regulators let their pals run wild...change the gd channel, dupe.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Wall street banks need more regulations, regulators, and regulators to watch the regulators.
Because of how well they did their jobs last time. Too f---ing funny

 

[blackhawk]

do you think us tax payers should really be responsible for bailing wall street out for taking risks they should have and would have never taken if it were not for the fact that they know us tax payers will be responsible for their losses and mistakes?

seriously!

No I don't but I also didn't and still don't believe the taxpayer should have to subsidise the cost of other peoples insurance either but this bill funds Obamacare for the next fiscal year I'm sure we can all find something in it we don't like. Part of compromise is understanding your not going to get everything you want.

 

[francoHFW]

First you wrote in post #1:

There's nothing major at risk here. Shut it down.

Then, in post #39 you wrote:

Does anyone know what would actually be "shut down" if this bill doesn't pass?

So, which is it?

You don't know? That's what I'm trying to figure out, whether anyone actually knows what will and will not be "shut down" if this bill fails in the Senate. I don't think most people do. It seems that "government shutdown" has become just another panic term, along with communism and global warming.

You're looking at the greatest research device ever- Google shutdown effects and learn something ferchrissake. We'll be here...

 

[francoHFW]

Wall street banks need more regulations, regulators, and regulators to watch the regulators.
Because of how well they did their jobs last time. Too f---ing funny

Those were you Pub regulators, dunce. Bush was a total disaster in every possible way. At least now we'll have the Consumer Protection Agency- Thank you Sen. Warren! and Obama.

 

[peach174]

First you wrote in post #1:

There's nothing major at risk here. Shut it down.

Then, in post #39 you wrote:

Does anyone know what would actually be "shut down" if this bill doesn't pass?

So, which is it?

You don't know? That's what I'm trying to figure out, whether anyone actually knows what will and will not be "shut down" if this bill fails in the Senate. I don't think most people do. It seems that "government shutdown" has become just another panic term, along with communism and global warming.

is this really something good that any of us should hang our hats on?

The swap provision she references would allow Wall Street banks to trade risky financial derivatives from subsidiaries that are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. -- potentially putting taxpayers on the hook for losses. Big banks traded derivatives from these FDIC-backed units in the years leading up to the 2008 crash, but the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law required them to move many of the transactions to other subsidiaries that are not insured by taxpayers. Banks receive higher credit ratings for derivatives they sell from taxpayer-backed units, which in turn makes the derivatives more profitable.

Be honest, please.

What was bad is that it did not include Fannie and Freddie.There are exempt from the bill

Were NEVER the problem. Their share of the market went from 75% to 25% in 2003 when Booshie regulators let their pals run wild...change the gd channel, dupe.

They had proof that Freddie was doing illegal hedge fund trading.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Bawney Fwank you financial genius.... You cant make this shit up eh ?

 

[francoHFW]

do you think us tax payers should really be responsible for bailing wall street out for taking risks they should have and would have never taken if it were not for the fact that they know us tax payers will be responsible for their losses and mistakes?

seriously!

No I don't but I also didn't and still don't believe the taxpayer should have to subsidise the cost of other peoples insurance either but this bill funds Obamacare for the next fiscal year I'm sure we can all find something in it we don't like. Part of compromise is understanding your not going to get everything you want.

Of course we already were, just in the stupidest way possible. Now they're contributing, and there's transparent competition and prices bending down. You're welcome.

 

[francoHFW]

First you wrote in post #1:

There's nothing major at risk here. Shut it down.

Then, in post #39 you wrote:

Does anyone know what would actually be "shut down" if this bill doesn't pass?

So, which is it?

You don't know? That's what I'm trying to figure out, whether anyone actually knows what will and will not be "shut down" if this bill fails in the Senate. I don't think most people do. It seems that "government shutdown" has become just another panic term, along with communism and global warming.

is this really something good that any of us should hang our hats on?

The swap provision she references would allow Wall Street banks to trade risky financial derivatives from subsidiaries that are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. -- potentially putting taxpayers on the hook for losses. Big banks traded derivatives from these FDIC-backed units in the years leading up to the 2008 crash, but the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law required them to move many of the transactions to other subsidiaries that are not insured by taxpayers. Banks receive higher credit ratings for derivatives they sell from taxpayer-backed units, which in turn makes the derivatives more profitable.

Be honest, please.

What was bad is that it did not include Fannie and Freddie.There are exempt from the bill

Were NEVER the problem. Their share of the market went from 75% to 25% in 2003 when Booshie regulators let their pals run wild...change the gd channel, dupe.

They had proof that Freddie was doing illegal hedge fund trading.

AFTER a couple years, under Pub pressure.

 

[peach174]

First you wrote in post #1:

There's nothing major at risk here. Shut it down.

Then, in post #39 you wrote:

Does anyone know what would actually be "shut down" if this bill doesn't pass?

So, which is it?

You don't know? That's what I'm trying to figure out, whether anyone actually knows what will and will not be "shut down" if this bill fails in the Senate. I don't think most people do. It seems that "government shutdown" has become just another panic term, along with communism and global warming.

is this really something good that any of us should hang our hats on?

The swap provision she references would allow Wall Street banks to trade risky financial derivatives from subsidiaries that are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. -- potentially putting taxpayers on the hook for losses. Big banks traded derivatives from these FDIC-backed units in the years leading up to the 2008 crash, but the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law required them to move many of the transactions to other subsidiaries that are not insured by taxpayers. Banks receive higher credit ratings for derivatives they sell from taxpayer-backed units, which in turn makes the derivatives more profitable.

Be honest, please.

What was bad is that it did not include Fannie and Freddie.There are exempt from the bill

Were NEVER the problem. Their share of the market went from 75% to 25% in 2003 when Booshie regulators let their pals run wild...change the gd channel, dupe.

They had proof that Freddie was doing illegal hedge fund trading.

AFTER a couple years, under Pub pressure.

During the Enron scandal.

 

[Judicial review]

There's nothing major at risk here. Shut it down.

Democrats Revolt Against Wall Street Giveaway In Deal To Prevent Government Shutdown

Irony of ironies...lib Dems tell Obabble to go fuck himself. Remember all the bs from a year ago about hostage taking? Now the foo is on the other shit....fucking hilarious.

is it a bad bill in your opinion? Or is it a good bill in your opinion?

When a bill pisses off both the right and the left that's usually a good thing.

Probably the best post to this point on this site. Excellent point.

 

[Vigilante]

do you think us tax payers should really be responsible for bailing wall street out for taking risks they should have and would have never taken if it were not for the fact that they know us tax payers will be responsible for their losses and mistakes?

seriously!

The regime did it with the QE's forever that Obola wanted!

 

[Care4all]

do you think us tax payers should really be responsible for bailing wall street out for taking risks they should have and would have never taken if it were not for the fact that they know us tax payers will be responsible for their losses and mistakes?

seriously!

No I don't but I also didn't and still don't believe the taxpayer should have to subsidise the cost of other peoples insurance either but this bill funds Obamacare for the next fiscal year I'm sure we can all find something in it we don't like. Part of compromise is understanding your not going to get everything you want.

the RISK is too big to compromise on this Wall STREET Derivative FDIC backing, 100 times bigger and more costly than Obama care...

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Breaking News Fannie and Freddie formally announce 3 Down Programs Keeping Current Matters

F---king geniuses these civil servants....

 

[blackhawk]

do you think us tax payers should really be responsible for bailing wall street out for taking risks they should have and would have never taken if it were not for the fact that they know us tax payers will be responsible for their losses and mistakes?

seriously!

No I don't but I also didn't and still don't believe the taxpayer should have to subsidise the cost of other peoples insurance either but this bill funds Obamacare for the next fiscal year I'm sure we can all find something in it we don't like. Part of compromise is understanding your not going to get everything you want.

the RISK is too big to compromise on this Wall STREET Derivative FDIC backing, 100 times bigger and more costly than Obama care...

We don't know that because we don't know the full cost or impact of Obmacare as it has not been fully implemented yet but to date it has done little if any of what was promised and the cost have been more than advertised.

 

[Care4all]

do you think us tax payers should really be responsible for bailing wall street out for taking risks they should have and would have never taken if it were not for the fact that they know us tax payers will be responsible for their losses and mistakes?

seriously!

No I don't but I also didn't and still don't believe the taxpayer should have to subsidise the cost of other peoples insurance either but this bill funds Obamacare for the next fiscal year I'm sure we can all find something in it we don't like. Part of compromise is understanding your not going to get everything you want.

they gave nothing up...even if we all agreed that Obamacare needed to go away, it CAN'T be shut down tomorrow and everything go back to where it was BEFORE Ocare...it will take at least a year, or two, to make it disappear. It has to be funded for this coming year, period...
people have already bought their insurance for next year, businesses have already committed to their insurance for next year... So there really is no compromise....

AND WHY OH WHY do Republicans and Democrats in the Senate too, WANT to insure derivatives that are risky and put this ON OUR SHOULDERS TO PAY?

WHY?

This is just plain wrong, for ALL OF US.

 

[francoHFW]

Does anyone know what would actually be "shut down" if this bill doesn't pass?

The bill passed, no sense speculating!

GOOD for the country and good, COMPROMISING, gov't. We have the Consumer Protection Agency to watch those a-hole Pub crony real estaters...but you have heard of the Senate, right? They will pass it though. Lots of adults there- although fewer in January. But it DOES look the "no compromise, un-American TP GOP" (TIME) insanity is over for a while, and hopefully forever.

Still time for Cruz/Palin 2016! though, hater dupes. lol

Yes, we will still vote American....

Jeebus what a brainwashed tool....enjoy seeing the nonrich and the country ruined, and no doubt screwing up the world and and being a laughingstock horror AGAIN. Can you say ideological idiocy incompetence and bigotry...

 

[francoHFW]

do you think us tax payers should really be responsible for bailing wall street out for taking risks they should have and would have never taken if it were not for the fact that they know us tax payers will be responsible for their losses and mistakes?

seriously!

No I don't but I also didn't and still don't believe the taxpayer should have to subsidise the cost of other peoples insurance either but this bill funds Obamacare for the next fiscal year I'm sure we can all find something in it we don't like. Part of compromise is understanding your not going to get everything you want.

the RISK is too big to compromise on this Wall STREET Derivative FDIC backing, 100 times bigger and more costly than Obama care...

We don't know that because we don't know the full cost or impact of Obmacare as it has not been fully implemented yet but to date it has done little if any of what was promised and the cost have been more than advertised.

BS. Prices are coming DOWN in those states and areas cooperating. Sorry about dumbass red ones...

 

[Judicial review]

do you think us tax payers should really be responsible for bailing wall street out for taking risks they should have and would have never taken if it were not for the fact that they know us tax payers will be responsible for their losses and mistakes?

seriously!

No I don't but I also didn't and still don't believe the taxpayer should have to subsidise the cost of other peoples insurance either but this bill funds Obamacare for the next fiscal year I'm sure we can all find something in it we don't like. Part of compromise is understanding your not going to get everything you want.

they gave nothing up...even if we all agreed that Obamacare needed to go away, it CAN'T be shut down tomorrow and everything go back to where it was BEFORE Ocare...it will take at least a year, or two, to make it disappear. It has to be funded for this coming year, period...
people have already bought their insurance for next year, businesses have already committed to their insurance for next year... So there really is no compromise....

AND WHY OH WHY do Republicans and Democrats in the Senate too, WANT to insure derivatives that are risky and put this ON OUR SHOULDERS TO PAY?

WHY?

This is just plain wrong, for ALL OF US.

Actually, Obamacare was already funded back in September through current year. There no new funding for the ACA in the budget. A capital hill senior expert who has been following all the procedure stuff has pointed this out on the Kelly file. This is conservative spin to make the establishment look bad to further divide congress, which will cost them an election if they succeed. Which, they wont.

 

[Vigilante]

Does anyone know what would actually be "shut down" if this bill doesn't pass?

The bill passed, no sense speculating!

GOOD for the country and good, COMPROMISING, gov't. We have the Consumer Protection Agency to watch those a-hole Pub crony real estaters...but you have heard of the Senate, right? They will pass it though. Lots of adults there- although fewer in January. But it DOES look the "no compromise, un-American TP GOP" (TIME) insanity is over for a while, and hopefully forever.

Still time for Cruz/Palin 2016! though, hater dupes. lol

Yes, we will still vote American....

Jeebus what a brainwashed tool....enjoy seeing the nonrich and the country ruined, and no doubt screwing up the world and and being a laughingstock horror AGAIN. Can you say ideological idiocy incompetence and bigotry...

what does this matter to you, you Limey scumbag? Take care of your own country for a change!