Eliot Spitzer explains how Bush screwed the pooch

GLB closed the unitary thrift loophole - which allowed any commercial firm to purchase a thrift institution - but Congress now needs to close the industrial loan company loophole to maintain the separation of banking and commerce;

This was what should have done.

Any action you take has consequences some may be intended and some may not be. Once you realize what they are action should be taken. Who put this into the GBLA act and why? This was touted as a bill to protect the consumers information and someone slid this part in for some reason. Why and by whom was this part written and once it was deemed dangerous it should have been removed. This bill was signed by Clinton but it was written by Republicans and sponsered by republicans. Then they refused to amend it when it proved it needed removing. To try and make this situation an equal blame game is just redicules.
 
Damocles said:
Your argument is based on what you pretend I said, not on what I actually said. You have a happy and healthy imagination, thanks for your special contribution to the conversation.

When have I told you not to vote for Obama? I simply pointed out that Obama is even further from your "core" of anti-immigration than even McCain. I plan on voting third party.
Click to expand...

No. you were saying they did it too. and they did. There's no pretend here.

I'm voting for Obama out of spite for republicans. plus if they intend on outsourcing every job, we will need handouts from the state.

If hillary is the nominee I'll probably just sit it out and bitch a whole lot.

And you're welcome for my special contribution.
 
Desh said:
GLB closed the unitary thrift loophole - which allowed any commercial firm to purchase a thrift institution - but Congress now needs to close the industrial loan company loophole to maintain the separation of banking and commerce;

This was what should have done.

Any action you take has consequences some may be intended and some may not be. Once you realize what they are action should be taken. Who put this into the GBLA act and why? This was touted as a bill to protect the consumers information and someone slid this part in for some reason. Why and by whom was this part written and once it was deemed dangerous it should have been removed. This bill was signed by Clinton but it was written by Republicans and sponsered by republicans. Then they refused to amend it when it proved it needed removing. To try and make this situation an equal blame game is just redicules.
Click to expand...
I don't think it is "equal" but at least you understand that somebody contributed other than Bush. We're making progress. Of course you simply run past who signed the law (you mention it but then excuse him for any actions). The original law that began it, and made them eager to continue the "More <insert group here>" promotion of their candidacies was written by whom? 1992... Think hard...

Each step along the way had its contributing effects, each point where I have pointed out you re-mention then blame everybody but who you don't want "blamed". Forget blaming. What we need to do is ensure that we don't support any of the mess, the whole of the contributions regardless of who put them into effect. Hopefully next time we'll be able to stop it before it ever gets to the 2004 Administration siding with the banks.

This was a long-term growing problem that began with crap legislation in 1992, and continued through until the present each step pushing it that much further and making the problem when we finally got around to dealing with it larger than it had to be.
 
AssHatZombie said:
No. you were saying they did it too. and they did. There's no pretend here.

I'm voting for Obama out of spite for republicans. plus if they intend on outsourcing every job, we will need handouts from the state.

If hillary is the nominee I'll probably just sit it out and bitch a whole lot.

And you're welcome for my special contribution.
Click to expand...
Jesus. Not as a fricking EXCUSE. Why are you being deliberately obtuse? I'm not saying, "Boy, it's all good because they did it too." I am saying, "If we don't pay attention to the entire problem we will repeat it later."

Everybody f'ed up, and if we don't learn where they f'ed up then we will do it all again. We must look at the whole of the issue and find the root cause or we are just treating symptoms.
 
Damocles said:
Jesus. Not as a fricking EXCUSE. Why are you being deliberately obtuse? I'm not saying, "Boy, it's all good because they did it too." I am saying, "If we don't pay attention to the entire problem we will repeat it later."

Everybody f'ed up, and if we don't learn where they f'ed up then we will do it all again. We must look at the whole of the issue and find the root cause or we are just treating symptoms.
Click to expand...

Desh was never saying it was ONLY REPUBLICANS. Her article just happened to be about republican complicity and the executive's role in it. You started this game of accusing people of what they weren't saying.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Desh was never saying it was ONLY REPUBLICANS. Her article just happened to be about republican complicity and the executive's role in it. You started this game of accusing people of what they weren't saying.
Click to expand...
Yes she is. Do you not read her posts?

She has been for weeks saying it is only republicans that contributed to the problem. While I don't care if it is only republicans who contributed, I care that we pay attention to each step of the problem along the way. Where it went wrong, how it went wrong, where we could have stopped it all along the way rather than look at the end and pretend that it is the whole of the problem.

You are simply not reading the thread and promoting what you want to see about my posts without regard to reality. In other words, you are being deliberately disingenuous.
 
She even has a post in here that says, "These weren't a problem until..." and one that says, "He signed it, but it wasn't his fault" for another.

Now, regardless of who signed the bad legislation, or who wrote it, the only way to avoid it in the future is to understand that it was bad.
 
AssHatZombie said:
It wasn't in this thread.
Click to expand...
Duh. However, this thread is not in a vacuum. We have known each other a long time and we can use previous context and understanding in posts. Amazingly, humans have a capability called "memory" and the ability to use it in framing conversation.
 
It is the case that laws have no tangible effect unless the executive decides to enforce them adequately. And that's was bush's territory.
 
AssHatZombie said:
It is the case that laws have no tangible effect unless the executive decides to enforce them adequately. And that's was bush's territory.
Click to expand...
Again, I will note that you haven't even bothered to read the thread, even the portion you participate in. Even Desh recognized that laws that Clinton signed contributed. Of course she excused the fact that he signed the law... But that is all beside the point. You are now just repeating inanities. We already know that Bush contributed to making it worse by siding with the banks in 2004 and that is no longer where this conversation is going.

You keep pointing out what all sides have already agreed to as if you are making some sort of salient point.
 
Damocles said:
Again, I will note that you haven't even bothered to read the thread, even the portion you participate in. Even Desh recognized that laws that Clinton signed contributed. Of course she excused the fact that the signed the law... But that is all beside the point. You are now just repeating inanities. We already know that Bush contributed to making it worse by siding with the banks in 2004 and that is no longer where this conversation is going.

You keep pointing out what all sides have already agreed to as if you are making some sort of salient point. You are not contributing, you sound like a simpleton.
Click to expand...

But bush has been enforcing it fastidiously despite local opposition for the past eight. And the executive is where the rubber meets the road.
 
AssHatZombie said:
But bush has been enforcing it fastidiously despite local opposition for the past eight. And the executive is where the rubber meets the road.
Click to expand...
Repeat it again, it doesn't make it any more salient to the conversation. Again, we have already all stated that this was bad. Also, the R congress contributed by making bundling even easier than the 90s laws we were also speaking of. Don't let them off the hook.

Or you can repeat this again.

It's like my four year old repeating that 2+2=4 any time that I start helping one of my other daughter's with math. True, she's right each time she repeats it, but it really doesn't add to the conversation.
 
Damocles said:
Repeat it again, it doesn't make it any more salient to the conversation. Again, we have already all stated that this was bad. Also, the R congress contributed by making bundling even easier than the 90s laws we were also speaking of. Don't let them off the hook.

Or you can repeat this again.

It's like my four year old repeating that 2+2=4 any time that I start helping one of my other daughter's with math. True, she's right each time she repeats it, but it really doesn't add to the conversation.
Click to expand...

Repeat this some more. Do some more insults. That's cool.
 
Damocles said:
We agree. And?
Click to expand...

So the impact of these laws is due to bush's decision to enforce them mercilessly despite all opposition and local outrage. I think that was desh's point. You agree with desh and me.

You better getter a second mortgage on your ass cuz it's pwned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top