American Politics

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2712385]What do you call a bill that passed with 75% of Democrats in the House voting for it and 84% of the Democrats in the Senate voting for it and signed into law by Bill Clinton originated by Robert Rubin? Well, if you are Eih, you call it a bill passed into law by "a veto proof Republican majority".

A year before the law was passed, Citicorp, a commercial bank holding company, merged with the insurance company Travelers Group in 1998 to form the conglomerate Citigroup, a corporation combining banking, securities and insurance services under a house of brands that included Citibank, Smith Barney, Primerica, and Travelers. Because this merger was a violation of the GlassSteagall Act and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, the Federal Reserve gave Citigroup a temporary waiver in September 1998.

Robert Rubin received more than $126 million in cash and stock during his tenure at Citigroup, up through and including Citigroup's bailout by the USA Treasury, but according to you Eih, that was just a happy coincidence.[/QUOTE]See how it is a much better use of your time to sit and calculate what percentage of the Dem Minorities in the 1999 House and Senate voted to repeal and replace Glass-Steagall, an utterly pointless exercise but at least it keeps you out of gambling loss trouble, and then agree with me and confirm my major points than to blather nonsense about history, the political parties, the economy, the stock market and I should have included science before, as you usually do?

Uh. In 1999 the Republican Party held the Majority control in both the House and the Senate. Famously so, I would say. That means every committee in both houses of Congress was Chaired by a Repub, every bill proposed and put up for a vote done so by a Repub, etc.

Therefore, when 90%+ of the House and 90%+ of the Senate voted to repeal and replace Glass-Steagall under those circumstances in late 1999, way way more than the 66% or so necessary to make it impossible for a POTUS to veto it, well, sure enough, that meant it was done "by a veto proof Repub Majority Congress. ".

See how that works?

And I am pleased to see you further confirm how obsolete and ineffectual Glass-Stegall had become well before that 1999 vote in that its violation had not only been upheld by court ruling years prior but that also allowed for the Fed to grant a waiver to Citicorp for "violating" it at least a year before its official repeal and replacement.

Hence, that high percentage of evil Dems and saintly Repubs agreed in the Republican Majority House and Senate of late 1999 that such an obsolete and no longer effective legally or by Fed dictate law ought to be repealed and replaced by something that addresses the realities of the banking world as it existed at that time. And for the most part the ultra evil free and enthusiastic blowjob-accepting Bill Clinton agreed with them.

The only requirement was that, like Glass-Steagall and every other banking regulation law on the books, that replacement's effectiveness would be determined by how diligently a president's Treasury Department monitored and enforced the regulation.

Lo and behold, history shows evil Dem Clinton's Treasury Department monitored and enforced banking regulations extremely well. But for the next 8 years of a saintly Repub Treasury Department, not so much. Spectacularly and disastrously so. What a surprise.

[QUOTE=Villainy;2712393]Damn you ElhTooms! I also read the revisionist history of Glass-Steagall written by Elvis but you were faster on the draw. His "history" of the Glass-Steagall Act wasn't even close.
First of all it wasn't written by Joe Kennedy. Senator Glass was the principal author and his original bill stalled in the House in 1932. In 1933 with Representative Henry Steagall as a co-sponsor the bill passed and was signed into law by FDR. I'm positive Elvis has no idea what the purpose of Glass-Steagall was or why it was important to Depression era banking.[/QUOTE]I have no idea where you get this shit from. Joe Kennedy wrote Glass-Steagall? Where did you come up with that? He wrote the securities laws. Gilda Radner had you pegged here: [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQppLas38uI[/URL].

This is only about the 100th time you have gone off on an imaginary point, and once more, you think you can read my mind. Xpartan just did the same stupid thing when he read the mind of 75 million Trump voters.

My point was that with all the Red-blue shit going on the bureaucrats are having a heyday writing up their own laws, and what do you morons do? Go right back into a red-blue conflict. Eih even lies and says the Republians had a veto proof majority and that is why Glass-Stegall was repealed which is complete BS. I wonder why you did not correct him on that? Did you not know that?

And the repeal of Glass-Stegall happened under Clinton, and he signed the bill into law. There was no veto. You all lied about that too.

What was so funny is that JustTK does not have a dog in the fight. He is more leftist than anyone of you, and even he cannot stand you dumb Dems. There is no getting to the truth with you. The collapse in 2008 was not just on Republicans or Dems but so many people, and it might be something he would be interested in discussing, but with you guys, it is just that if there were no Republicans, the recession never would have happened.

Everything good is Democrats, and everything bad is Republicans. Of course, neither you or Eih are living here anymore so why do you care so much? The only reason I see is that the government is paying you off and you think if the Republicans come into power, your gravy train may end.

Hey, Viiainy, you genius, you want to tell me where you are invested right now? You all in on Biden too? Or are you totally dependent on the government's cheese?

[QUOTE=ScatManDoo;2711813]

Deleted by Admin

[/QUOTE]Your so full of scat that your mail box is full. Please delete some msgs so that I can reply to your PM.

[QUOTE=Gino02;2712484]LOL what actually worked? Did Putin invade Ukraine (or any other country) during Trump's time? For the record, Putin did invade Ukraine in both Obama and Biden presidency, so which POTUS is the best diplomat out of these recent three?[/QUOTE]That's what your post is. "After this therefore because of this" (that's what the Latin phrase means). According to you, Putin didn't invade Ukraine during the Orange Buffoons 4-year reign of terror therefore Putin's non-invasion was because of the Orange Buffoon.

Using the exact same analysis, Putin didn't invade Ukraine while the Orange Buffoon was in charge because he knew that war would be costly and the Orange Buffoon would dismantle NATO and give Putin what he wanted anyway if the Orange Buffoon was re-elected.

See how that works?

[QUOTE=DramaFree11;2712471]All were setup, by a corrupt Democratic Party, FBI CIA, and others. Manafort was a mistake and definitely a crook. I would take any of these guys over the clowns Bidden has surrounded himself. Take a look at the economy, gas prices and crime all way up, no denying it. Yes, Trump was a bad guy, but he did a good job up until.

Jan 6.

I guarantee the war would have never started or would have ended under Trump. Bidden for some stupid reason is doing everything in his powers to keep it going and doing nothing to find a solution or compromise between the 2 countries. Again, Bidden is not calling the shots. He has one foot out the door, he will powerless in 4-6 months or sooner. If liberal media is turning on him his days are numbered, thank god. He is destroying this country. Somebody needs to step in before it is too late.[/QUOTE]When someone drinks enough orange-flavored KoolAid to fill the Pacific Ocean, we get posts like yours. "It was all a setup". "Nobody had any proof of anything yet all those guys were indicted". What drivel!

You [B]guarantee[/B] that war would have never started? How can you do that? Just because Putin didn't invade Ukraine while the Orange Buffoon was in charge [B]does not[/B] mean that Putin didn't invade because he was scared of the Mango Mussolini. There is a Latin phrase that says exactly when that type of analysis is: "Post hoc ergo propter hoc". That means "after this therefore because of this". "A" happened, then "be" happened, therefore "be" was caused by "A". An example is: "I ate Wheaties this morning and later in the day I had a car wreck. Therefore, eating Wheaties caused my car wreck. " Now, obviously, anybody with a brain will look at the last statement and say that it is patently absurd. And it is. But that's what "post hoc ergo propter hoc" is trying to say.

Using the same type of analysis, it is [B]just as likely[/B] that Putin didn't invade while Donnie the Dumbass was in charge because he knew that if his puppet was re-elected, he would destroy NATO and essentially give Putin Ukraine without Putin having to do anything.

Of course, to you tRUMPers, "post hoc ergo propter hoc" is a perfectly fine analysis when it suits you ("Putin didn't invade because he was afraid of tRUMP") but a horrible analysis when it doesn't ("Putin didn't invade because tRUMP would have destroyed NATO and essentially given Putin Ukraine without Putin having to do anything".

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2711866]Putin never listened to Trump for anything. Putin told Trump. Trump obeyed.

Trump was helping Putin weaken western / democratic alliances in order to pave the way for authoritarian dictatorships to prevail over representative demicracies, starting with the USA.

Oh, so sad Biden didn't continue dutifully assisting strong man Putin in that goal, slammed on the brakes, disrupted Putin-Trump's big plans, reunified and strengthened western / democratic alliances like never before and forced poor widdow Putin to reveal to the world what a misinformed idiotic leader with big but crap military capabilities he was all along despite Trump lavishing praise on him for everything he said and did for 4 years, almost achieving Putin's goal for him in the end.

But then we had the fairest election in history, Trump was out and Putin's plans came to a crashing halt. Boo hoo.[/QUOTE][URL]https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/british-man-turned-away-from-giving-blood-after-refusing-to-answer-if-he-was-pregnant-report[/URL]

[QUOTE=Gino02;2712484]LOL what actually worked? Did Putin invade Ukraine (or any other country) during Trump's time? For the record, Putin did invade Ukraine in both Obama and Biden presidency, so which POTUS is the best diplomat out of these recent three?[/QUOTE]I was making a point about diplomacy to the Original Poster who said something about Diplomacy Lesson One so I have no idea where you are coming from. You obviously didn't understand. He was talking about diplomacy while name calling whomever he was rebutting. That is not diplomacy.

By the way. Didn't Saudi Arabia invade Yemen during Trump? Hmmm. I guess you forgot that one. Remember when he did a sword dance with them during his first official trip abroad? I bet they did some "sword fighting" in private too.

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2712510]I have no idea where you get this shit from. Joe Kennedy wrote Glass-Steagall? Where did you come up with that? He wrote the securities laws. Gilda Radner had you pegged here: [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQppLas38uI[/URL].

This is only about the 100th time you have gone off on an imaginary point, and once more, you think you can read my mind. Xpartan just did the same stupid thing when he read the mind of 75 million Trump voters.

My point was that with all the Red-blue shit going on the bureaucrats are having a heyday writing up their own laws, and what do you morons do? Go right back into a red-blue conflict. Eih even lies and says the Republians had a veto proof majority and that is why Glass-Stegall was repealed which is complete BS. I wonder why you did not correct him on that? Did you not know that?

And the repeal of Glass-Stegall happened under Clinton, and he signed the bill into law. There was no veto. You all lied about that too.

What was so funny is that JustTK does not have a dog in the fight. He is more leftist than anyone of you, and even he cannot stand you dumb Dems. There is no getting to the truth with you. The collapse in 2008 was not just on Republicans or Dems but so many people, and it might be something he would be interested in discussing, but with you guys, it is just that if there were no Republicans, the recession never would have happened.[/QUOTE]Here is exactly what you wrote: "I am not sure what he means with LBJ. With FDR, you had Glass Steagall and the best security laws I have ever seen written. They were the back bone of our stock market and written by Joe Kennedy father of JFK after he swindled everyone in the market."

Denying that you said that Joe Kennedy didn't write Glass-Steagall means that you can't write. Or say what you mean. Kinda like Donnie the Dumbass. "Even though there is video of me saying exactly that, I never said that."

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2712079]That is much more refreshing than any pol talking. Thing is all these people out of power always make more sense than the ones in power.

I am not sure what he means with LBJ. With FDR, you had Glass Steagall and the best security laws I have ever seen written. They were the back bone of our stock market and written by Joe Kennedy father of JFK after he swindled everyone in the market. It is funny with Eih, the guy is such a bonehead, with he and his Democrat laws being so great. Yeah, FDR signed Glass Stegall into law, and it was IMO a great law. Thing is he leaves out the part that Bill Clinton repealed it! This was done at the behest of Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin who wanted Citibank and Traveler's insurance to merge for his own personal gain. Nine years later, in 2008, we saw the effect of repealing GS with the 2008 Great Recession.

But it was not all Dems though Matt Taibbi who studied the economic bubbles put more blame at their feet than Republicans. No, later on, it was unelected bureaucrats. The Supreme Court had a ruling that pretty much destroyed any responsibility a board of directors has to its shareholders. And with Covid, we saw Congress completely cede legal authority to the executive branch. Practically all Congress does these days is throw money at people.

The real issue now IMO is not even partisan. It is not Democrats or Republicans but unelected bureaucrats who answer to no one who are the biggest problem. The red-blue debate gets in the way of Americans seeing the truth.[/QUOTE]This is the entire bonehead post.

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2712510]
What was so funny is that JustTK does not have a dog in the fight. He is more leftist than anyone of you, and even he cannot stand you dumb Dems. There is no getting to the truth with you. The collapse in 2008 was not just on Republicans or Dems but so many people, and it might be something he would be interested in discussing, but with you guys, it is just that if there were no Republicans, the recession never would have happened.[/QUOTE]Yeah, well, let's see. JustTK didn't grow up in the United States and isn't (nor has he ever been) a US citizen (or so I remember him saying somewhere back in some ancient comment).

So why would I (or anyone else) be interested in discussing the Great Recession with someone who isn't familiar with the US Government and how it interacts with the financial markets?

Of course, if he were incredibly well read on how our mortgage loan lending worked and how mortgages were sold and securitized and how those MBS (mortgage backed securities) were rated by the rating agencies and sold. Well, then he might have some insights on the causes of the Great Recession but somehow I doubt it.

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2712510]Everything good is Democrats, and everything bad is Republicans. Of course, neither you or Eih are living here anymore so why do you care so much? [B]The only reason I see is that the government is paying you off and you think if the Republicans come into power, your gravy train may end[/B].[/QUOTE]Are you suggesting that because I'm retired and after a few years of deferring my social security, started taking it this year, that there is something shameful? Don't worry for me, Elvis. I also accumulated pretty substantial retirement accounts. I haven't even had to touch those accounts but of course, the mandatory required withdrawals start at age 72.

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2712510]Hey, Viiainy, you genius, you want to tell me where you are invested right now? You all in on Biden too? Or are you totally dependent on the government's cheese?[/QUOTE]I would be happy to tell you how my investments are structured. About 35% are in REITs (Real Estate Investment Trusts) that pay solid dividends. Most of these are Triple-Net lease REITs which means that typical costs are borne by the tenants and there are annual rent escalators based on increases in the CPI. Best of all, they own the real estate and buildings and hence there is solid protection against inflation. Since I'm not withdrawing from my retirement accounts, I simply reinvest the dividends. Another 35-40% are invested in high quality companies that pay dividends. Most of them have paid dividends for many years and both earnings and dividends are solidly growing. Last and not least, about 25-30% are invested in high quality growth stocks. Many of these don't pay a dividend or pay a nominal amount. Admittedly many of these have been blistered in 2022. But I'm not worried, all of these stocks are super high quality and no doubt will rebound over time. So, all in all I'm down less than 10% but more than 5% in 2022. I haven't sat down and worked out the exact number.

Now as to your specious claim of having shorted the market at just the right point. Seriously Elvis, do you think anyone believes you?? If you were so omniscient that the Biden presidency would be a bust, I'm surprised you waited until the market hit it's exact high-point to start shorting. Wouldn't someone with your convictions have started shorting on inauguration day 2021? How would that have played out??

Actually the market (S&P 500) is more than 100 points higher that it was the morning Biden was inaugurated. So, of course, you waited and waited and now claim you brilliantly went short just at (or near) the point when the market hit its zenith. I'll ask again. [B]do you really think anyone believes you?[/B].

I would also have commented on your denial of having said Joe Kennedy wrote Glass-Steagall [B]but PVMonger beat me to it.[/B] But if your new position is that Kennedy was appointed head of the SEC and wrote the Securities laws. I think you should know he was appointed and served just over 1 year. He was not an attorney and thus would never have even attempted to write complex securities laws. He was, however, an astute executive and he hired a few very bright attorneys to do that work. 2 of those attorneys were later appointed Supreme Court justices.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2712506]See how it is a much better use of your time to sit and calculate what percentage of the Dem Minorities in the 1999 House and Senate voted to repeal and replace Glass-Steagall, an utterly pointless exercise but at least it keeps you out of gambling loss trouble, and then agree with me and confirm my major points than to blather nonsense about history, the political parties, the economy, the stock market and I should have included science before, as you usually do?

Uh. In 1999 the Republican Party held the Majority control in both the House and the Senate. Famously so, I would say. That means every committee in both houses of Congress was Chaired by a Repub, every bill proposed and put up for a vote done so by a Repub, etc.

Therefore, when 90%+ of the House and 90%+ of the Senate voted to repeal and replace Glass-Steagall under those circumstances in late 1999, way way more than the 66% or so necessary to make it impossible for a POTUS to veto it, well, sure enough, that meant it was done "by a veto proof Repub Majority Congress. ".

See how that works?

And I am pleased to see you further confirm how obsolete and ineffectual Glass-Stegall had become well before that 1999 vote in that its violation had not only been upheld by court ruling years prior but that also allowed for the Fed to grant a waiver to Citicorp for "violating" it at least a year before its official repeal and replacement.

Hence, that high percentage of evil Dems and saintly Repubs agreed in the Republican Majority House and Senate of late 1999 that such an obsolete and no longer effective legally or by Fed dictate law ought to be repealed and replaced by something that addresses the realities of the banking world as it existed at that time. And for the most part the ultra evil free and enthusiastic blowjob-accepting Bill Clinton agreed with them.

The only requirement was that, like Glass-Steagall and every other banking regulation law on the books, that replacement's effectiveness would be determined by how diligently a president's Treasury Department monitored and enforced the regulation.

Lo and behold, history shows evil Dem Clinton's Treasury Department monitored and enforced banking regulations extremely well. But for the next 8 years of a saintly Repub Treasury Department, not so much. Spectacularly and disastrously so. What a surprise.[/QUOTE][URL]https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2022/06/25/carlson-on-dem-reaction-to-dobbs-dont-lecture-us-ever-again-about-the-sanctity-of-our-institutions/[/URL]

A great commentary on a BS critique of socialism. In a language that no doubt some of you will appreciate. This is exactly why the Dems and Reps are the same.

[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXByw0KwOn0[/URL]

[QUOTE=Gino02;2712426]Compared to this one (Buyden)--Trump was way better diplomat. Can you deny that?[/QUOTE]Fuck YES! My dog is a better diplomat than Don the Con, the laughing stock of the world.

[QUOTE=Gino02;2712426]Is Trump better diplomat than Buyden? [/QUOTE]Fuck NO! My dog is a better diplomat than Don the Con, the laughing stock of the world.

President Trump Is Literally the Laughingstock of the World.

[URL]https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-un-laughing-729039/[/URL]

[QUOTE=Gino02;2712483]LOL and your point being?[/QUOTE]LOL, my point is he can't produce an empathic response even when his advisors write him a note "reminding him to be empathetic when talking to people".

[QUOTE=Gino02;2712483]Did Russia invade Ukraine or any other country during Trump's time? [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Gino02;2712483]Compared to this one (Buyden) we are stuck with now until removal by impeachment, 25th amendment or forced resignation[/QUOTE]Stay on point please.

[B]Trump privately called a Roe v. Wade reversal bad for his party[/B]

[URL]https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/06/24/nation/trump-privately-called-roe-v-wade-reversal-bad-his-party-2/[/URL]

Gee, do you really think so?

Add to his remarkable achievement in being the first so-called potus since Repub Herbert Hoover to lose the House, the Senate and the Presidency for his Party to the Dems in just one four-year term his quite likely achievement in denying a legitimate White House win for a Repub from here to eternity.

I have to specify "legitimate", of course, because the post-Trump Repub Party has been desperately setting up state and local ballot gathering and counting systems to be run exclusively by their loony QAnon sex-for-pleasure hating and America hating religious zealots to make sure Dem votes get thrown out by the boxcar load in every election from now on.

But if all legitimate ballots and votes were to be counted, it is highly doubtful the same Repub Party that brought us every major economic decline of the past 100 years, none of the great economic expansions AND successfully outlawed sex-for-pleasure, restricting sex for the purpose of procreation only, will ever win another important election in a current 18 year old's expected lifetime.

I notice Moscow Mitch isn't taking a victory lap over this one though. He knows that so very passionately hoped for Red Tsunami this November just might start turning a deep navy Blue right about now.

Keep opening your pie hole, Donnie.

Great discussion w Thom Hartmann.

[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SI-c5YN98No&t=917s[/URL]