Why do people talk about "liberal bias" when the phrase is technically an oxymoron?

[Derideo_Te]

Section 716 of Dodd Frank requires financial institutions to push out almost all of their derivatives business into separate entities.
This not only increases transaction costs, which are paid by the consumers, it also makes our financial system less secure by forcing swap trading out of regulated institutions.
This was changed by both parties so that they can't do swap trading to unregulated institutions.
It does not put taxpayers on the hook for bail outs.

BZZZT Wrong!

By forcing swaps outside of financial institutions it means that they cannot be put at risk by defaults. Deregulating this requirement reintroduces the "too big to fail" risk again. Repeating the same mistake expecting a different outcome is the height of stupidity. But that is exactly what the Wall Street Casino bosses ordered and paid for using Citizens United to buy up Congress.

Just don't come whining when the economy collapses again and you are on the hook for another couple of trillion.

It is not forcing swaps outside of financial institutions.

Dodd Frank Bill was forcing swap trading out of regulated institutions.

Obviously I didn't make myself clear.

Financial institutions were at risk of failing because of they took massive risk with swaps.

Dodd-Frank imposed a sensible rule requiring Financial institutions to make all swaps outside of their corporate entity so as not to jeopardize the rest of their financial holdings since that is what caused the economic collapse and the TARP bailout.

Removing that Dodd-Frank rule means that the Wall Street Casino bosses can once again gamble trillions of taxpayer dollars and if they win they keep their money and if they lose taxpayers are forced to repay their losses.

That is what Senator Warren said and she was 100% correct. When the economy crashes again you have only yourself to blame for not backing her when you had the chance.

They did not remove it. They changed Sec. 176
Spending bill funds SEC and CFTC amends Dodd-Frank swaps push-o

Dodd-Frank swaps push-out provision. Currently, Section 716 of Dodd-Frank prevents federally insured financial institutions from conducting certain swaps trading, including trading of commodity, equity, and credit derivatives. This prohibition compels financial institutions to push out swaps trading into separately capitalized affiliates. The measure would amend Section 716 of the Dodd-Frank Act to protect farmers and other commodity producers from having to put down excessive collateral to get a loan, expand their businesses, and hedge production.

It would allow financial institutions to continue to conduct risk-mitigation efforts for clients, such as farmers and manufacturers, who use swaps to insure against price fluctuations. It would also modify Section 716 to allow commodity and equity derivatives in financial institutions with federal deposit insurance. However, derivatives involving structured finance transactions would still need to be pushed out of a federally insured financial institution.

Under the legislation, the only swaps that covered depository institutions must spin out to separately capitalized entities are structured finance swaps unless they are undertaken for hedging or risk management purposes or expressly permitted by prudential regulators to take place in a covered depository institution. The bill also ensures that uninsured U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks are treated the same as insured depository institutions by defining both groups as covered depository institutions.

Office of Financial Research. The measure contains additional reporting requirements to increase transparency of the activities of agencies whose funding jurisdiction fall outside annual congressional review. Specifically, the Office of Financial Research must provide quarterly reports on its activities to Congress. The reports must include, among other things, the obligations made during the previous quarter by object class, office, and activity and the estimated obligations for the remainder of the fiscal year by object class, office, and activity.

What President Obama objects to is that he said, the swaps push-out rider would weaken a critical component of financial system reform aimed at reducing taxpayer risk.

I think that the additional reporting requirements would stop that from happening..
Changing the bill to protect farmers and other commodity producers from having to put down excessive collateral to get a loan, in order to expand their businesses, and hedge production to me is a good thing.

Thank you for admitting that this is deregulating the provision to prevent the Wall Street Casino bosses from gambling at taxpayer expense. That they are trying to disguise it as something to help farmers is BS. The reality is that now they have a loophole in which to go gambling again. Oh, and the post facto reporting provision won't stop them from doing it either because by the time it is reported they will have their hands in your pocket because those Wall Street Casino bosses are "too big to fail".

FYI as someone who claims to be for the TP you have just betrayed your own movement by supporting this amendment. This is the ultimate in "big government spending" and you have willingly enabled it.

Think about it.

 

[peach174]

Section 716 of Dodd Frank requires financial institutions to push out almost all of their derivatives business into separate entities.
This not only increases transaction costs, which are paid by the consumers, it also makes our financial system less secure by forcing swap trading out of regulated institutions.
This was changed by both parties so that they can't do swap trading to unregulated institutions.
It does not put taxpayers on the hook for bail outs.

BZZZT Wrong!

By forcing swaps outside of financial institutions it means that they cannot be put at risk by defaults. Deregulating this requirement reintroduces the "too big to fail" risk again. Repeating the same mistake expecting a different outcome is the height of stupidity. But that is exactly what the Wall Street Casino bosses ordered and paid for using Citizens United to buy up Congress.

Just don't come whining when the economy collapses again and you are on the hook for another couple of trillion.

It is not forcing swaps outside of financial institutions.

Dodd Frank Bill was forcing swap trading out of regulated institutions.

Obviously I didn't make myself clear.

Financial institutions were at risk of failing because of they took massive risk with swaps.

Dodd-Frank imposed a sensible rule requiring Financial institutions to make all swaps outside of their corporate entity so as not to jeopardize the rest of their financial holdings since that is what caused the economic collapse and the TARP bailout.

Removing that Dodd-Frank rule means that the Wall Street Casino bosses can once again gamble trillions of taxpayer dollars and if they win they keep their money and if they lose taxpayers are forced to repay their losses.

That is what Senator Warren said and she was 100% correct. When the economy crashes again you have only yourself to blame for not backing her when you had the chance.

They did not remove it. They changed Sec. 176
Spending bill funds SEC and CFTC amends Dodd-Frank swaps push-o

Dodd-Frank swaps push-out provision. Currently, Section 716 of Dodd-Frank prevents federally insured financial institutions from conducting certain swaps trading, including trading of commodity, equity, and credit derivatives. This prohibition compels financial institutions to push out swaps trading into separately capitalized affiliates. The measure would amend Section 716 of the Dodd-Frank Act to protect farmers and other commodity producers from having to put down excessive collateral to get a loan, expand their businesses, and hedge production.

It would allow financial institutions to continue to conduct risk-mitigation efforts for clients, such as farmers and manufacturers, who use swaps to insure against price fluctuations. It would also modify Section 716 to allow commodity and equity derivatives in financial institutions with federal deposit insurance. However, derivatives involving structured finance transactions would still need to be pushed out of a federally insured financial institution.

Under the legislation, the only swaps that covered depository institutions must spin out to separately capitalized entities are structured finance swaps unless they are undertaken for hedging or risk management purposes or expressly permitted by prudential regulators to take place in a covered depository institution. The bill also ensures that uninsured U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks are treated the same as insured depository institutions by defining both groups as covered depository institutions.

Office of Financial Research. The measure contains additional reporting requirements to increase transparency of the activities of agencies whose funding jurisdiction fall outside annual congressional review. Specifically, the Office of Financial Research must provide quarterly reports on its activities to Congress. The reports must include, among other things, the obligations made during the previous quarter by object class, office, and activity and the estimated obligations for the remainder of the fiscal year by object class, office, and activity.

What President Obama objects to is that he said, the swaps push-out rider would weaken a critical component of financial system reform aimed at reducing taxpayer risk.

I think that the additional reporting requirements would stop that from happening..
Changing the bill to protect farmers and other commodity producers from having to put down excessive collateral to get a loan, in order to expand their businesses, and hedge production to me is a good thing.

Thank you for admitting that this is deregulating the provision to prevent the Wall Street Casino bosses from gambling at taxpayer expense. That they are trying to disguise it as something to help farmers is BS. The reality is that now they have a loophole in which to go gambling again. Oh, and the post facto reporting provision won't stop them from doing it either because by the time it is reported they will have their hands in your pocket because those Wall Street Casino bosses are "too big to fail".

FYI as someone who claims to be for the TP you have just betrayed your own movement by supporting this amendment. This is the ultimate in "big government spending" and you have willingly enabled it.

Think about it.

I never admitted anything even close to what you just accused me of.
You won't believe facts, that is your choice.Keep your head in the sand that no Dems helped to change that part of the bill.
It is not BS about that part of the Dodd Frank bill harming the smaller businesses who want loans by having to pay excessive collateral.
That had been discussed before the Dodd Frank bill passed and the people who decided to change that was Repubs and Dems.
I am not part of the Tea Party movement. I support some of their basic ideas but not all.

 

[eagle1462010]

The Too Big to Fail need a leash. The 2000 Leahy Graham bill allowed the Too Big to Fail to be SELF REGULATED. Once implemented it allowed Derivatives to be traded into the next Universe. That added with previous removals of the Glass Steagall Act allowed them to combine Commercial and Investment Resources to Swap and Trade their asses off. A house of Cards that had to fall, as they didn't have the ASSETS to back them up. Once the Markets Farted, the whole dang thing came down.

The 4 Major Banks in this country have a risk to ASSET Margin that is utterly laughable. It is exactly why people call them ZOMBIE BANKS. They hold the LION'S SHARE of the DERIVATIVE MARKETS this country. And the Markets have been re-inflated...........When the next Fart Occurs is the next question. These Giants are so far up our politician's asses that they control when the shit hits the fan.
TARP was a joke and a SMOKE SCREEN. The Real Bail Outs was at the Discount Window of the Federal Reserve. To a tune of basically INTEREST FREE LOANS to a tune of 16.1 TRILLION DOLLARS. Added in with
the QE program, to RE-INFLATE.

The Dodd Frank was the attempt to put a leash o n them, but in reality it has allowed the FIAT MARKETS to the moon again. What was needed was the REPEAL of the 2000 law along with other provisions of the Glass Steagall Act. That is what SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE and not the Dodd Frank Act.

4 Banks control 90% of the currency in this country. They buy our politicians...........BOTH SIDES.....and they have done more damage than a STANDING ARMY to this country. Not only do they need to be put on a leash, they need to have their testicles cut off.

I have long posted this data. I have long disapproved of bailing them out. Their assets should have been seized and put out of business. All we have done, is spend a massive amount of BORROWING to revive a DEAD CORPSE, which in the end will cause an even deeper crash.

 

[GreenBean]

Hello. I thought this would be the best forum to ask this and I've wondered it for a few years now. It doesn't make sense if you think about it (even by con standards). Liberalism is neutral by definition. The farther to the right you move, the more partisan you become. It's an obvious fact if you look at the US today. The Left is where all of the groups fighting for social justice and against bigotry and intolerance lay. The more right wing an individual or group is, the more they represent causes that the Left opposes.

Homosexuality is a good example. Liberals have always fought to represent their needs and educate people not to treat them poorly because of their orientation. The GOP ran on an explicitly anti-gay platform roughly a decade ago. Reproductive rights is another. It's the Left that safeguards women's right to choose when and whether to have children and gives them options to deal with unwanted pregnancies and support if they choose to keep them. The Right is where all of the misogynists find support for their explicitly anti-choice agenda. They're the ones who think it's moral to enslave half of the population just because they have wombs and force them to have as many children as possible.

These are just a few examples of why bias just isn't part of the liberal equation. The entire point of liberalism is defeating bias and giving everyone the exact same rights and quality of life regardless of their personal identity and life choices. Wouldn't it follow then that the only bias possible is conservative bias, ie towards the status quo?

You're an idiot.

Welcome to the board, the sort of response you're going to get by people who think they're intelligent, isn't an answer that you can reply to much, it's just insults.

And your post is a perfect example of that ..

 

[eagle1462010]

Audit of the Federal Reserve Reveals 16 Trillion in Secret Bailouts

The list of institutions that received the most money from the Federal Reserve can be found on page 131of the GAO Audit and are as follows.. Citigroup: $2.5 trillion ($2,500,000,000,000)
Morgan Stanley: $2.04 trillion ($2,040,000,000,000)
Merrill Lynch: $1.949 trillion ($1,949,000,000,000)
Bank of America: $1.344 trillion ($1,344,000,000,000)
Barclays PLC (United Kingdom): $868 billion ($868,000,000,000)
Bear Sterns: $853 billion ($853,000,000,000)
Goldman Sachs: $814 billion ($814,000,000,000)
Royal Bank of Scotland (UK): $541 billion ($541,000,000,000)
JP Morgan Chase: $391 billion ($391,000,000,000)
Deutsche Bank (Germany): $354 billion ($354,000,000,000)
UBS (Switzerland): $287 billion ($287,000,000,000)
Credit Suisse (Switzerland): $262 billion ($262,000,000,000)
Lehman Brothers: $183 billion ($183,000,000,000)
Bank of Scotland (United Kingdom): $181 billion ($181,000,000,000)
BNP Paribas (France): $175 billion ($175,000,000,000)
and many many more including banks in Belgium of all places

 

[GreenBean]

Hello. I thought this would be the best forum to ask this and I've wondered it for a few years now. It doesn't make sense if you think about it (even by con standards). Liberalism is neutral by definition. The farther to the right you move, the more partisan you become. It's an obvious fact if you look at the US today. The Left is where all of the groups fighting for social justice and against bigotry and intolerance lay. The more right wing an individual or group is, the more they represent causes that the Left opposes.

Homosexuality is a good example. Liberals have always fought to represent their needs and educate people not to treat them poorly because of their orientation. The GOP ran on an explicitly anti-gay platform roughly a decade ago. Reproductive rights is another. It's the Left that safeguards women's right to choose when and whether to have children and gives them options to deal with unwanted pregnancies and support if they choose to keep them. The Right is where all of the misogynists find support for their explicitly anti-choice agenda. They're the ones who think it's moral to enslave half of the population just because they have wombs and force them to have as many children as possible.

These are just a few examples of why bias just isn't part of the liberal equation. The entire point of liberalism is defeating bias and giving everyone the exact same rights and quality of life regardless of their personal identity and life choices. Wouldn't it follow then that the only bias possible is conservative bias, ie towards the status quo?

 

[The Rabbi]

Reagan did what he had to do, and didn't whine like Obama does. Clinton benefited from Reagan's policies big time.

Reagan whined for years blaming Carter. NO ONE benefited from the Reagan years, we are still paying the price for his failed 'revolution'...

Reagan never blamed Carter, you ignornat piece of Monkey shit. That's Obama who whines about his predecessors.

Ronald Reagan Presidential term began: January 20, 1981

Reagan Blamed Carter

The next time you hear a right winger complaining that one whole year! into Obama's Presidency he continues to blame George Bush for his our problems, remind them of the following quote from Reagan's 1983 State of the Union:

"The problems we inherited were far worse than most inside and out of government had expected; the recession was deeper than most inside and out of government had predicted. Curing those problems has taken more time and a higher toll than any of us wanted."



In Reagan's 1982 State of the Union, he went after his predecessor for blame plenty of times:

"To understand the State of the Union, we must look not only at where we are and where we're going but where we've been. The situation at this time last year was truly ominous."


...

"In the last six months of 1980, as an example, the money supply increased at the fastest rate in postwar history 13 percent. Inflation remained in double digits and Government spending increased at an annual rate of 17 percent. Interest rates reached a s taggering 21 1/2 percent. There were eight million unemployed."

...

"First, we must understand what's happening at the moment to the economy. Our current problems are not the product of the recovery program that's only just now getting under way, as some would have you believe; they are the inheritance of decades of tax and tax, and spend"

...

"Now the budget deficit this year will exceed our earlier expectations. The recession did that. It lowered revenues and increased costs."

I dont see the name Carter anywhere there. Just a statement of historic fact.
You fail./

Why am I not surprised that a pea brain like you would make a pea brain reply?

Pointing out facts is now "pea brain"? Reagan never blamed Carter. Obama constatly blames Bush. Obama doesnt measure up to Reagan's bowel movements.

 

[Derideo_Te]

BZZZT Wrong!

By forcing swaps outside of financial institutions it means that they cannot be put at risk by defaults. Deregulating this requirement reintroduces the "too big to fail" risk again. Repeating the same mistake expecting a different outcome is the height of stupidity. But that is exactly what the Wall Street Casino bosses ordered and paid for using Citizens United to buy up Congress.

Just don't come whining when the economy collapses again and you are on the hook for another couple of trillion.

It is not forcing swaps outside of financial institutions.

Dodd Frank Bill was forcing swap trading out of regulated institutions.

Obviously I didn't make myself clear.

Financial institutions were at risk of failing because of they took massive risk with swaps.

Dodd-Frank imposed a sensible rule requiring Financial institutions to make all swaps outside of their corporate entity so as not to jeopardize the rest of their financial holdings since that is what caused the economic collapse and the TARP bailout.

Removing that Dodd-Frank rule means that the Wall Street Casino bosses can once again gamble trillions of taxpayer dollars and if they win they keep their money and if they lose taxpayers are forced to repay their losses.

That is what Senator Warren said and she was 100% correct. When the economy crashes again you have only yourself to blame for not backing her when you had the chance.

They did not remove it. They changed Sec. 176
Spending bill funds SEC and CFTC amends Dodd-Frank swaps push-o

Dodd-Frank swaps push-out provision. Currently, Section 716 of Dodd-Frank prevents federally insured financial institutions from conducting certain swaps trading, including trading of commodity, equity, and credit derivatives. This prohibition compels financial institutions to push out swaps trading into separately capitalized affiliates. The measure would amend Section 716 of the Dodd-Frank Act to protect farmers and other commodity producers from having to put down excessive collateral to get a loan, expand their businesses, and hedge production.

It would allow financial institutions to continue to conduct risk-mitigation efforts for clients, such as farmers and manufacturers, who use swaps to insure against price fluctuations. It would also modify Section 716 to allow commodity and equity derivatives in financial institutions with federal deposit insurance. However, derivatives involving structured finance transactions would still need to be pushed out of a federally insured financial institution.

Under the legislation, the only swaps that covered depository institutions must spin out to separately capitalized entities are structured finance swaps unless they are undertaken for hedging or risk management purposes or expressly permitted by prudential regulators to take place in a covered depository institution. The bill also ensures that uninsured U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks are treated the same as insured depository institutions by defining both groups as covered depository institutions.

Office of Financial Research. The measure contains additional reporting requirements to increase transparency of the activities of agencies whose funding jurisdiction fall outside annual congressional review. Specifically, the Office of Financial Research must provide quarterly reports on its activities to Congress. The reports must include, among other things, the obligations made during the previous quarter by object class, office, and activity and the estimated obligations for the remainder of the fiscal year by object class, office, and activity.

What President Obama objects to is that he said, the swaps push-out rider would weaken a critical component of financial system reform aimed at reducing taxpayer risk.

I think that the additional reporting requirements would stop that from happening..
Changing the bill to protect farmers and other commodity producers from having to put down excessive collateral to get a loan, in order to expand their businesses, and hedge production to me is a good thing.

Thank you for admitting that this is deregulating the provision to prevent the Wall Street Casino bosses from gambling at taxpayer expense. That they are trying to disguise it as something to help farmers is BS. The reality is that now they have a loophole in which to go gambling again. Oh, and the post facto reporting provision won't stop them from doing it either because by the time it is reported they will have their hands in your pocket because those Wall Street Casino bosses are "too big to fail".

FYI as someone who claims to be for the TP you have just betrayed your own movement by supporting this amendment. This is the ultimate in "big government spending" and you have willingly enabled it.

Think about it.

I never admitted anything even close to what you just accused me of.

I never accused you of anything at all and yes, you did just tacitly admit it.

You won't believe facts, that is your choice.Keep your head in the sand that no Dems helped to change that part of the bill.

Go back and reread the thread. You falsely alleged that Senator Warren never read that bill and that has been exposed as a lie.

It is not BS about that part of the Dodd Frank bill harming the smaller businesses who want loans by having to pay excessive collateral.

Obviously you don't understand what you are quoting because that is NOT what this is about. They can still get loans with normal collateral. It is only if they want to use swaps as hedged collateral that it becomes an issue. If you believe that small businesses use swaps and hedges as collateral then you really are clueless as far as this topic is concerned.

That had been discussed before the Dodd Frank bill passed and the people who decided to change that was Repubs and Dems.
I am not part of the Tea Party movement. I support some of their basic ideas but not all.

Are you now claiming that the TP isn't opposed to government bailouts?

 

[GreenBean]

Hello. I thought this would be the best forum to ask this and I've wondered it for a few years now. It doesn't make sense if you think about it (even by con standards). Liberalism is neutral by definition. The farther to the right you move, the more partisan you become. It's an obvious fact if you look at the US today. The Left is where all of the groups fighting for social justice and against bigotry and intolerance lay. The more right wing an individual or group is, the more they represent causes that the Left opposes.

Homosexuality is a good example. Liberals have always fought to represent their needs and educate people not to treat them poorly because of their orientation. The GOP ran on an explicitly anti-gay platform roughly a decade ago. Reproductive rights is another. It's the Left that safeguards women's right to choose when and whether to have children and gives them options to deal with unwanted pregnancies and support if they choose to keep them. The Right is where all of the misogynists find support for their explicitly anti-choice agenda. They're the ones who think it's moral to enslave half of the population just because they have wombs and force them to have as many children as possible.

These are just a few examples of why bias just isn't part of the liberal equation. The entire point of liberalism is defeating bias and giving everyone the exact same rights and quality of life regardless of their personal identity and life choices. Wouldn't it follow then that the only bias possible is conservative bias, ie towards the status quo?

 

[peach174]

It is not forcing swaps outside of financial institutions.

Dodd Frank Bill was forcing swap trading out of regulated institutions.

Obviously I didn't make myself clear.

Financial institutions were at risk of failing because of they took massive risk with swaps.

Dodd-Frank imposed a sensible rule requiring Financial institutions to make all swaps outside of their corporate entity so as not to jeopardize the rest of their financial holdings since that is what caused the economic collapse and the TARP bailout.

Removing that Dodd-Frank rule means that the Wall Street Casino bosses can once again gamble trillions of taxpayer dollars and if they win they keep their money and if they lose taxpayers are forced to repay their losses.

That is what Senator Warren said and she was 100% correct. When the economy crashes again you have only yourself to blame for not backing her when you had the chance.

They did not remove it. They changed Sec. 176
Spending bill funds SEC and CFTC amends Dodd-Frank swaps push-o

Dodd-Frank swaps push-out provision. Currently, Section 716 of Dodd-Frank prevents federally insured financial institutions from conducting certain swaps trading, including trading of commodity, equity, and credit derivatives. This prohibition compels financial institutions to push out swaps trading into separately capitalized affiliates. The measure would amend Section 716 of the Dodd-Frank Act to protect farmers and other commodity producers from having to put down excessive collateral to get a loan, expand their businesses, and hedge production.

It would allow financial institutions to continue to conduct risk-mitigation efforts for clients, such as farmers and manufacturers, who use swaps to insure against price fluctuations. It would also modify Section 716 to allow commodity and equity derivatives in financial institutions with federal deposit insurance. However, derivatives involving structured finance transactions would still need to be pushed out of a federally insured financial institution.

Under the legislation, the only swaps that covered depository institutions must spin out to separately capitalized entities are structured finance swaps unless they are undertaken for hedging or risk management purposes or expressly permitted by prudential regulators to take place in a covered depository institution. The bill also ensures that uninsured U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks are treated the same as insured depository institutions by defining both groups as covered depository institutions.

Office of Financial Research. The measure contains additional reporting requirements to increase transparency of the activities of agencies whose funding jurisdiction fall outside annual congressional review. Specifically, the Office of Financial Research must provide quarterly reports on its activities to Congress. The reports must include, among other things, the obligations made during the previous quarter by object class, office, and activity and the estimated obligations for the remainder of the fiscal year by object class, office, and activity.

What President Obama objects to is that he said, the swaps push-out rider would weaken a critical component of financial system reform aimed at reducing taxpayer risk.

I think that the additional reporting requirements would stop that from happening..
Changing the bill to protect farmers and other commodity producers from having to put down excessive collateral to get a loan, in order to expand their businesses, and hedge production to me is a good thing.

Thank you for admitting that this is deregulating the provision to prevent the Wall Street Casino bosses from gambling at taxpayer expense. That they are trying to disguise it as something to help farmers is BS. The reality is that now they have a loophole in which to go gambling again. Oh, and the post facto reporting provision won't stop them from doing it either because by the time it is reported they will have their hands in your pocket because those Wall Street Casino bosses are "too big to fail".

FYI as someone who claims to be for the TP you have just betrayed your own movement by supporting this amendment. This is the ultimate in "big government spending" and you have willingly enabled it.

Think about it.

I never admitted anything even close to what you just accused me of.

I never accused you of anything at all and yes, you did just tacitly admit it.

You won't believe facts, that is your choice.Keep your head in the sand that no Dems helped to change that part of the bill.

Go back and reread the thread. You falsely alleged that Senator Warren never read that bill and that has been exposed as a lie.

It is not BS about that part of the Dodd Frank bill harming the smaller businesses who want loans by having to pay excessive collateral.

Obviously you don't understand what you are quoting because that is NOT what this is about. They can still get loans with normal collateral. It is only if they want to use swaps as hedged collateral that it becomes an issue. If you believe that small businesses use swaps and hedges as collateral then you really are clueless as far as this topic is concerned.

That had been discussed before the Dodd Frank bill passed and the people who decided to change that was Repubs and Dems.
I am not part of the Tea Party movement. I support some of their basic ideas but not all.

Are you now claiming that the TP isn't opposed to government bailouts?

Go ahead and twist it all you want.
It still does not make it true.
The Dems as well as the Repubs supported the changes

 

[Bfgrn]

Hello. I thought this would be the best forum to ask this and I've wondered it for a few years now. It doesn't make sense if you think about it (even by con standards). Liberalism is neutral by definition. The farther to the right you move, the more partisan you become. It's an obvious fact if you look at the US today. The Left is where all of the groups fighting for social justice and against bigotry and intolerance lay. The more right wing an individual or group is, the more they represent causes that the Left opposes.

Homosexuality is a good example. Liberals have always fought to represent their needs and educate people not to treat them poorly because of their orientation. The GOP ran on an explicitly anti-gay platform roughly a decade ago. Reproductive rights is another. It's the Left that safeguards women's right to choose when and whether to have children and gives them options to deal with unwanted pregnancies and support if they choose to keep them. The Right is where all of the misogynists find support for their explicitly anti-choice agenda. They're the ones who think it's moral to enslave half of the population just because they have wombs and force them to have as many children as possible.

These are just a few examples of why bias just isn't part of the liberal equation. The entire point of liberalism is defeating bias and giving everyone the exact same rights and quality of life regardless of their personal identity and life choices. Wouldn't it follow then that the only bias possible is conservative bias, ie towards the status quo?

You started out as appearing to have a brain...now you just proved it is the size of a pea.

 

[GreenBean]

Hello. I thought this would be the best forum to ask this and I've wondered it for a few years now. It doesn't make sense if you think about it (even by con standards). Liberalism is neutral by definition. The farther to the right you move, the more partisan you become. It's an obvious fact if you look at the US today. The Left is where all of the groups fighting for social justice and against bigotry and intolerance lay. The more right wing an individual or group is, the more they represent causes that the Left opposes.

Homosexuality is a good example. Liberals have always fought to represent their needs and educate people not to treat them poorly because of their orientation. The GOP ran on an explicitly anti-gay platform roughly a decade ago. Reproductive rights is another. It's the Left that safeguards women's right to choose when and whether to have children and gives them options to deal with unwanted pregnancies and support if they choose to keep them. The Right is where all of the misogynists find support for their explicitly anti-choice agenda. They're the ones who think it's moral to enslave half of the population just because they have wombs and force them to have as many children as possible.

These are just a few examples of why bias just isn't part of the liberal equation. The entire point of liberalism is defeating bias and giving everyone the exact same rights and quality of life regardless of their personal identity and life choices. Wouldn't it follow then that the only bias possible is conservative bias, ie towards the status quo?

You started out as appearing to have a brain...now you just proved it is the size of a pea.

 

[TSJohnson]

I didn't call anyone racist. Racists do find a home in the Right though. Look at our society right now. It's liberal America that's been clamping down on racial discrimination, intolerance, and hate speech. The conservative states and communities are where you'll find those who ask what the big deal with spying on brown people is and think that shooting first and asking questions later if the suspect is African American is a-okay.

 

[Stephanie]

You notice how liberals refer to people as a COLOR?

they aren't individuals to them, they are brown, black, yellow, hell next they'll have pink maybe

 

[jknowgood]

Blacks have blindly followed democrats for over 50 years. With the promise of a better life. Now tell me, are blacks better off? Republican blacks are.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Hello. I thought this would be the best forum to ask this and I've wondered it for a few years now. It doesn't make sense if you think about it (even by con standards). Liberalism is neutral by definition. The farther to the right you move, the more partisan you become. It's an obvious fact if you look at the US today. The Left is where all of the groups fighting for social justice and against bigotry and intolerance lay. The more right wing an individual or group is, the more they represent causes that the Left opposes.

Homosexuality is a good example. Liberals have always fought to represent their needs and educate people not to treat them poorly because of their orientation. The GOP ran on an explicitly anti-gay platform roughly a decade ago. Reproductive rights is another. It's the Left that safeguards women's right to choose when and whether to have children and gives them options to deal with unwanted pregnancies and support if they choose to keep them. The Right is where all of the misogynists find support for their explicitly anti-choice agenda. They're the ones who think it's moral to enslave half of the population just because they have wombs and force them to have as many children as possible.

These are just a few examples of why bias just isn't part of the liberal equation. The entire point of liberalism is defeating bias and giving everyone the exact same rights and quality of life regardless of their personal identity and life choices. Wouldn't it follow then that the only bias possible is conservative bias, ie towards the status quo?

Perfect example of what Rush Limbaugh says.

Liberals insist they have no bias. Liberalism is just how you should be normally.

It's also an example of what I say that liberals are on a constant war against the obvious.

And if you state the obvious, they go into a tantrum insisting the obvious does not exist.

And this guy's BIAS is obvious.

 

[kaz]

Liberalism is neutral by definition. The farther to the right you move, the more partisan you become. It's an obvious fact if you look at the US today. The Left is where all of the groups fighting for social justice and against bigotry and intolerance lay. The more right wing an individual or group is, the more they represent causes that the Left opposes.

You are an authoritarian leftist, not a liberal. That's why you don't understand why you are filled with "liberal bias." It's actually "authoritarian leftist bias."

I am a libertarian, we are the true liberals who actually don't practice bias in government. Government should provide basic services that aren't doable any other way, police, military, that sort of thing, then leave us alone. No bias.

 

[SwimExpert]

Prove me wrong.

Argument to ignorance.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Obviously I didn't make myself clear.

Financial institutions were at risk of failing because of they took massive risk with swaps.

Dodd-Frank imposed a sensible rule requiring Financial institutions to make all swaps outside of their corporate entity so as not to jeopardize the rest of their financial holdings since that is what caused the economic collapse and the TARP bailout.

Removing that Dodd-Frank rule means that the Wall Street Casino bosses can once again gamble trillions of taxpayer dollars and if they win they keep their money and if they lose taxpayers are forced to repay their losses.

That is what Senator Warren said and she was 100% correct. When the economy crashes again you have only yourself to blame for not backing her when you had the chance.

They did not remove it. They changed Sec. 176
Spending bill funds SEC and CFTC amends Dodd-Frank swaps push-o

Dodd-Frank swaps push-out provision. Currently, Section 716 of Dodd-Frank prevents federally insured financial institutions from conducting certain swaps trading, including trading of commodity, equity, and credit derivatives. This prohibition compels financial institutions to push out swaps trading into separately capitalized affiliates. The measure would amend Section 716 of the Dodd-Frank Act to protect farmers and other commodity producers from having to put down excessive collateral to get a loan, expand their businesses, and hedge production.

It would allow financial institutions to continue to conduct risk-mitigation efforts for clients, such as farmers and manufacturers, who use swaps to insure against price fluctuations. It would also modify Section 716 to allow commodity and equity derivatives in financial institutions with federal deposit insurance. However, derivatives involving structured finance transactions would still need to be pushed out of a federally insured financial institution.

Under the legislation, the only swaps that covered depository institutions must spin out to separately capitalized entities are structured finance swaps unless they are undertaken for hedging or risk management purposes or expressly permitted by prudential regulators to take place in a covered depository institution. The bill also ensures that uninsured U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks are treated the same as insured depository institutions by defining both groups as covered depository institutions.

Office of Financial Research. The measure contains additional reporting requirements to increase transparency of the activities of agencies whose funding jurisdiction fall outside annual congressional review. Specifically, the Office of Financial Research must provide quarterly reports on its activities to Congress. The reports must include, among other things, the obligations made during the previous quarter by object class, office, and activity and the estimated obligations for the remainder of the fiscal year by object class, office, and activity.

What President Obama objects to is that he said, the swaps push-out rider would weaken a critical component of financial system reform aimed at reducing taxpayer risk.

I think that the additional reporting requirements would stop that from happening..
Changing the bill to protect farmers and other commodity producers from having to put down excessive collateral to get a loan, in order to expand their businesses, and hedge production to me is a good thing.

Thank you for admitting that this is deregulating the provision to prevent the Wall Street Casino bosses from gambling at taxpayer expense. That they are trying to disguise it as something to help farmers is BS. The reality is that now they have a loophole in which to go gambling again. Oh, and the post facto reporting provision won't stop them from doing it either because by the time it is reported they will have their hands in your pocket because those Wall Street Casino bosses are "too big to fail".

FYI as someone who claims to be for the TP you have just betrayed your own movement by supporting this amendment. This is the ultimate in "big government spending" and you have willingly enabled it.

Think about it.

I never admitted anything even close to what you just accused me of.

I never accused you of anything at all and yes, you did just tacitly admit it.

You won't believe facts, that is your choice.Keep your head in the sand that no Dems helped to change that part of the bill.

Go back and reread the thread. You falsely alleged that Senator Warren never read that bill and that has been exposed as a lie.

It is not BS about that part of the Dodd Frank bill harming the smaller businesses who want loans by having to pay excessive collateral.

Obviously you don't understand what you are quoting because that is NOT what this is about. They can still get loans with normal collateral. It is only if they want to use swaps as hedged collateral that it becomes an issue. If you believe that small businesses use swaps and hedges as collateral then you really are clueless as far as this topic is concerned.

That had been discussed before the Dodd Frank bill passed and the people who decided to change that was Repubs and Dems.
I am not part of the Tea Party movement. I support some of their basic ideas but not all.

Are you now claiming that the TP isn't opposed to government bailouts?

Go ahead and twist it all you want.
It still does not make it true.
The Dems as well as the Repubs supported the changes

The onus is on you to prove that I "twisted" anything.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Hello. I thought this would be the best forum to ask this and I've wondered it for a few years now. It doesn't make sense if you think about it (even by con standards). Liberalism is neutral by definition. The farther to the right you move, the more partisan you become. It's an obvious fact if you look at the US today. The Left is where all of the groups fighting for social justice and against bigotry and intolerance lay. The more right wing an individual or group is, the more they represent causes that the Left opposes.

Homosexuality is a good example. Liberals have always fought to represent their needs and educate people not to treat them poorly because of their orientation. The GOP ran on an explicitly anti-gay platform roughly a decade ago. Reproductive rights is another. It's the Left that safeguards women's right to choose when and whether to have children and gives them options to deal with unwanted pregnancies and support if they choose to keep them. The Right is where all of the misogynists find support for their explicitly anti-choice agenda. They're the ones who think it's moral to enslave half of the population just because they have wombs and force them to have as many children as possible.

These are just a few examples of why bias just isn't part of the liberal equation. The entire point of liberalism is defeating bias and giving everyone the exact same rights and quality of life regardless of their personal identity and life choices. Wouldn't it follow then that the only bias possible is conservative bias, ie towards the status quo?

You started out as appearing to have a brain...now you just proved it is the size of a pea.

Greenbean is obviously incapable of contributing anything of any value to USMB so a one way ticket to Cyberia is required to reduce the waste of bandwidth that he is incurring.