Obama's Endgame~~~

[Crashk]

Gotta realize something: according to today's hard core liberal democrat, the "Center" line is draw about halfway between full blown socialism and Marxist communism. Karl Marx is "left of center" according to their massively skewed spectrum.

I used to be a democrat. But when they moved so far to the left that they define socialism as moderate, I started speaking out. When I got told to STFU, it was the last straw. (actual quote was "shut your nigger mouth and do as you're told" being 1/2 Native American, 1/4 black and 1/4 white I am a couple tones lighter than Obama, and several lighter than the speaker.) That is when I decided to not support the democratic party (exclusively) any longer. Since then the hard cores have moved even farther left, with their rhetoric actually defending socialism, instead of protesting they are not socialists. A big change - and goes a long way in legitimizing all the far right rhetoric over the last decades which accused the left of having a socialist agenda.

I get it, you've been reading Hannity and Beck again. Right wing corporate propaganda hasn't changed since the 1930's and now the right has moved so far right that the center looks like the far left. The problems this country faces are a direct result of you cheap-labor conservatives.

 

[Good Luck]

I get it, you've been reading Hannity and Beck again. Right wing corporate propaganda hasn't changed since the 1930's and now the right has moved so far right that the center looks like the far left. The problems this country faces are a direct result of you cheap-labor conservatives.

Do you deny the phenomenon that liberals have quit denying a socialist agenda, and instead are defending the concept of socialism? (or, perhaps you are too young to remember when liberals did deny having a socialist agenda?)

And are you implying this does not denote a strong move leftward by the liberal faction? If so, you are either the most ignorant poster in this site, or the biggest liar.

I don't read Hannity nor Beck, nor any of the others. I spent a number of years watching the leftward trend from the inside, as a willing, then not-so-willing, then opposing participant.

 

[Crashk]

Do you deny the phenomenon that liberals have quit denying a socialist agenda, and instead are defending the concept of socialism? (or, perhaps you are too young to remember when liberals did deny having a socialist agenda?)

And are you implying this does not denote a strong move leftward by the liberal faction? If so, you are either the most ignorant poster in this site, or the biggest liar.

I don't read Hannity nor Beck, nor any of the others. I spent a number of years watching the leftward trend from the inside, as a willing, then not-so-willing, then opposing participant.

Cheap-labor conservatives like you have howled with outrage and indignation against New Deal liberalism from its inception in the 1930's all the way to the present. You can go to "Free Republic" or Hannity's forum right now, and find a cheap-labor conservative comparing New Deal Liberalism to Stalinism or socialism.

The left hasn't changed since the 1930's when your form of cheap-labor conservatism had reduced the working American to serfdom and something had to be done to end the extreme poverty that you created. Today your neocon right has moved even farther to the right, so far that you cant even see the middle.

You can scream socialism all you want but Americans are realizing that it is your ideas and programs that have brought us to the brink of another Republicon Depression.

 

[Crashk]

As far as age... I remember Elvis... before Vegas.

 

[Good Luck]

As far as age... I remember Elvis... before Vegas.

Then answer the question, or are you too much a lying coward?

Do you deny that current liberals are more apt to defend the concept of socialism - even going so far as to claim things like law enforcement, fire protection, and the military are socialist - than to deny that the liberals have a socialist agenda?

And, do you deny that going from a policy of denying a socialist agenda to defending socialism is evidence of a leftward move of the liberal mainstream?

 

[apple0154]

5 years to do what it took 43 presidents to do!

There isn't one reason why the richest country on the face of the earth can not afford public health care. Of course, it has nothing to do with affordability. It has to do with allocating funds.

Imagine a person knowing their son or daughter requires medical care that would cost $20,000 and saying, "We can't afford that. I'm buying a new car this year." Or, "We've already planned a European vacation."

That is the mentality held by some members of government. They look at the things that are currently budgeted for and ask whether health care can be added. The health care bill changes that. It goes from being an option to being a priority. Now the question is, "What can we budget for after budgeting for health care" rather than "Can we budget for health care after we budget for everything else."

 

[USFREEDOM911]

There isn't one reason why the richest country on the face of the earth can not afford public health care. Of course, it has nothing to do with affordability. It has to do with allocating funds.

Imagine a person knowing their son or daughter requires medical care that would cost $20,000 and saying, "We can't afford that. I'm buying a new car this year." Or, "We've already planned a European vacation."

That is the mentality held by some members of government. They look at the things that are currently budgeted for and ask whether health care can be added. The health care bill changes that. It goes from being an option to being a priority. Now the question is, "What can we budget for after budgeting for health care" rather than "Can we budget for health care after we budget for everything else."

Now the question is, "What can we budget for after budgeting for health care" rather than "Can we budget for health care after we budget for everything else."

There is no "WE"; because you don't have a say in what the US does.
YOU don't get to budget anything in the US; but you can go bitch to your PM, if you feel Canada needs to do something different.

 

[Crashk]

Then answer the question, or are you too much a lying coward?

Do you deny that current liberals are more apt to defend the concept of socialism - even going so far as to claim things like law enforcement, fire protection, and the military are socialist - than to deny that the liberals have a socialist agenda?

And, do you deny that going from a policy of denying a socialist agenda to defending socialism is evidence of a leftward move of the liberal mainstream?

to answer your silly question... again.

Yes, I believe that liberals are more socially conscience and that liberals care more about American society than conservatives. Is that socialism? no. Obama had to bail out GM. If Bush had been pres. he would have done it too. But that doesn't mean that the govt has taken over the means of production. Your ideas of society and socialism have been mangled by Faux news. Don't lie and say you dont watch and believe because I've seen this same point being hammered on every communist sponsored 'news' show there.

The reason you are afraid of the term 'socialism' is because you are a cheap labor conservative pawn and anything that improves society takes profits away from your multi-national communist corporations.

Cheap-labor conservatives don't like social spending or our "safety net". Why. Because when you're unemployed and desperate, corporations can pay you whatever they feel like – which is inevitably next to nothing. You see, they want you "over a barrel" and in a position to "work cheap or starve".

Cheap-labor conservatives don't like the minimum wage, or other improvements in wages and working conditions. Why. These reforms undo all of their efforts to keep you "over a barrel".

Cheap-labor conservatives like "free trade", NAFTA, GATT, etc. Why. Because there is a huge supply of desperately poor people in the third world, who are "over a barrel", and will work cheap.

Cheap-labor conservatives oppose a woman's right to choose. Why. Unwanted children are an economic burden that put poor women "over a barrel", forcing them to work cheap.

Cheap-labor conservatives don't like unions. Why. Because when labor "sticks together", wages go up. That's why workers unionize. Seems workers don't like being "over a barrel".

Cheap-labor conservatives constantly bray about "morality", "virtue", "respect for authority", "hard work" and other "values". Why. So they can blame your being "over a barrel" on your own "immorality", lack of "values" and "poor choices".

Cheap-labor conservatives encourage racism, misogyny, homophobia and other forms of bigotry. Why? Bigotry among wage earners distracts (divides) them, and keeps them from recognizing their common interests as wage earners."

from a website that you will dismiss because your conditioning will not allow you to see the truth.
http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/55

Your so called 'free market' has failed and the American worker is now paying for it, thus negatively affecting our 'society'. The only way for working Americans to survive this conservative shit storm is to band together, like people have done all thru history, and demand a living wage. Your masters call it socialism, we call it survival.

I believe Johanna Sigurdardottir, (Icelands) new prime minister said it best, ‘The private banks failed, the supervisory system failed, the politics failed, the administration failed, the media failed, and the ideology of an unregulated free market utterly failed.’

 

[DamnYankee]

Like Bush?

Cite.

 

[DamnYankee]

What is conservative ideology?

www.conservative.org.

 

[Good Luck]

to answer your silly question... again.

Yes, I believe that liberals are more socially conscience and that liberals care more about American society than conservatives. Is that socialism? no. Obama had to bail out GM. If Bush had been pres. he would have done it too. But that doesn't mean that the govt has taken over the means of production. Your ideas of society and socialism have been mangled by Faux news. Don't lie and say you dont watch and believe because I've seen this same point being hammered on every communist sponsored 'news' show there.

The reason you are afraid of the term 'socialism' is because you are a cheap labor conservative pawn and anything that improves society takes profits away from your multi-national communist corporations.

Cheap-labor conservatives don't like social spending or our "safety net". Why. Because when you're unemployed and desperate, corporations can pay you whatever they feel like – which is inevitably next to nothing. You see, they want you "over a barrel" and in a position to "work cheap or starve".

Cheap-labor conservatives don't like the minimum wage, or other improvements in wages and working conditions. Why. These reforms undo all of their efforts to keep you "over a barrel".

Cheap-labor conservatives like "free trade", NAFTA, GATT, etc. Why. Because there is a huge supply of desperately poor people in the third world, who are "over a barrel", and will work cheap.

Cheap-labor conservatives oppose a woman's right to choose. Why. Unwanted children are an economic burden that put poor women "over a barrel", forcing them to work cheap.

Cheap-labor conservatives don't like unions. Why. Because when labor "sticks together", wages go up. That's why workers unionize. Seems workers don't like being "over a barrel".

Cheap-labor conservatives constantly bray about "morality", "virtue", "respect for authority", "hard work" and other "values". Why. So they can blame your being "over a barrel" on your own "immorality", lack of "values" and "poor choices".

Cheap-labor conservatives encourage racism, misogyny, homophobia and other forms of bigotry. Why? Bigotry among wage earners distracts (divides) them, and keeps them from recognizing their common interests as wage earners."

from a website that you will dismiss because your conditioning will not allow you to see the truth.
http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/55

Your so called 'free market' has failed and the American worker is now paying for it, thus negatively affecting our 'society'. The only way for working Americans to survive this conservative shit storm is to band together, like people have done all thru history, and demand a living wage. Your masters call it socialism, we call it survival.

I believe Johanna Sigurdardottir, (Icelands) new prime minister said it best, ‘The private banks failed, the supervisory system failed, the politics failed, the administration failed, the media failed, and the ideology of an unregulated free market utterly failed.’

LOL Are you a professional politician? Is that how you answer questions? By avoiding answering them with a long diatribe?

But, what I can gather, YES, you deny that liberals today are defending socialism rather than denying their socialist agenda. You can deny socialist agenda, but look at your fellow liberals, and their rhetoric.

How about this thread: http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=27551

Your fellow liberals defending socialism.

As for banking, it is the most heavily regulated market in the world. To claim it's failure is an example of "unregulated free market" is an outright lie.

And you completely ignore the background information I gave you with your mindless moral superiority rhetoric. You can't even adjust it for the individual. "You" this and "you" that. No where did I say I support free trade. Yet you put it in there because that is what the program says you must say. You haven't an original thought in that vacuum skull of yours. It's all pre-programmed by your political masters.

Yea, bail out of GM for billions of wasted dollars. Then GM goes bankrupt anyway, restructures as they would have without the bailouts, and goes on. Liberals with their prefrontal lobotomies filled in with pro-government thought processors hail the bailouts as proof government has to be in control. What a fucking laugh. The money is in the pockets of the corporate fat cats that ran GM into the ground - and their bought-off political cronies. They piss on the floor, call it lemonade and you mindless "I want my mommy government" limp dicks lick it up off the floor and beg for more.

What today's liberals cannot seem to grasp is it is not about whether government "cares" for the people or not. Democrat, republican, liberal (in truth socialist progressive), "conservative" (there are not genuine American style conservative politicians left.) - its all about more and more power for the government, and more and more control over the people. Neo-cons use fear of foreign attack to whittle away our liberties. Liberals use domestic fears to do the same. The end result is more power for the government, more powere for the politicians and their billionaire buddies while the people take it up the ass, with stupid twits like you, Midcan, Southern Man and Dixie cheering them on from opposite sides of the playing field.

 

[apple0154]

As for banking, it is the most heavily regulated market in the world. To claim it's failure is an example of "unregulated free market" is an outright lie.

It's not a lie. Did you watch "The Warning"? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/

Over ten years ago Brooksley Born warned about the lack of regulation. Specifically, derivatives.

Greenspan, then Chairman of the Federal Reserve, didn't want to prosecute fraud. His brainwave was after enough people lost enough money the market would regulate itself as people would stop investing in things that were worthless.

Even Greenspan admitted to Congress his idea of how the world worked was screwed up.

What more does it take? What else has to happen before major changes are put in place? Capitalism, the free market....whatever you want to call it....brought the world to the edge of financial collapse.

More regulations are needed. It's as simple as that.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

LOL Are you a professional politician? Is that how you answer questions? By avoiding answering them with a long diatribe?

But, what I can gather, YES, you deny that liberals today are defending socialism rather than denying their socialist agenda. You can deny socialist agenda, but look at your fellow liberals, and their rhetoric.

How about this thread: http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=27551

Your fellow liberals defending socialism.

As for banking, it is the most heavily regulated market in the world. To claim it's failure is an example of "unregulated free market" is an outright lie.

And you completely ignore the background information I gave you with your mindless moral superiority rhetoric. You can't even adjust it for the individual. "You" this and "you" that. No where did I say I support free trade. Yet you put it in there because that is what the program says you must say. You haven't an original thought in that vacuum skull of yours. It's all pre-programmed by your political masters.

Yea, bail out of GM for billions of wasted dollars. Then GM goes bankrupt anyway, restructures as they would have without the bailouts, and goes on. Liberals with their prefrontal lobotomies filled in with pro-government thought processors hail the bailouts as proof government has to be in control. What a fucking laugh. The money is in the pockets of the corporate fat cats that ran GM into the ground - and their bought-off political cronies. They piss on the floor, call it lemonade and you mindless "I want my mommy government" limp dicks lick it up off the floor and beg for more.

What today's liberals cannot seem to grasp is it is not about whether government "cares" for the people or not. Democrat, republican, liberal (in truth socialist progressive), "conservative" (there are not genuine American style conservative politicians left.) - its all about more and more power for the government, and more and more control over the people. Neo-cons use fear of foreign attack to whittle away our liberties. Liberals use domestic fears to do the same. The end result is more power for the government, more powere for the politicians and their billionaire buddies while the people take it up the ass, with stupid twits like you, Midcan, Southern Man and Dixie cheering them on from opposite sides of the playing field.

 

[apple0154]

Now the question is, "What can we budget for after budgeting for health care" rather than "Can we budget for health care after we budget for everything else."

There is no "WE"; because you don't have a say in what the US does.
YOU don't get to budget anything in the US; but you can go bitch to your PM, if you feel Canada needs to do something different.

Play nice now.

 

[Good Luck]

It's not a lie. Did you watch "The Warning"? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/

Over ten years ago Brooksley Born warned about the lack of regulation. Specifically, derivatives.

Greenspan, then Chairman of the Federal Reserve, didn't want to prosecute fraud. His brainwave was after enough people lost enough money the market would regulate itself as people would stop investing in things that were worthless.

Even Greenspan admitted to Congress his idea of how the world worked was screwed up.

What more does it take? What else has to happen before major changes are put in place? Capitalism, the free market....whatever you want to call it....brought the world to the edge of financial collapse.

More regulations are needed. It's as simple as that.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

While I will not argue with the idea that better (not necessarily more - but definitely better) regulations need to be put in place, the LIE is that the banking failure is an example of failed FREE MARKET. While the last two decades has seen diminished regulations on the banking industry, calling it "free market" is less accurate than saying up is toward the ground. Despite the regulations removed (by BOTH parties I might add) over the past couple decades, other regulations have been added, including "fair lending laws" which were also at the core of the collapse, requiring banks to lend mortgages, property loans, personal loans, and revolving credit loans to low income, high risk clients who ended up defaulting in droves - and THAT is the critical crux behind the collapse.

The banking industry is anything BUT a free market. It failed, true. Part (but definitely not all) of the reason it failed was due to inadequate regulations - true. But "failure of the free market system? ABSOLUTE LIE.

 

[apple0154]

While I will not argue with the idea that better (not necessarily more - but definitely better) regulations need to be put in place, the LIE is that the banking failure is an example of failed FREE MARKET. While the last two decades has seen diminished regulations on the banking industry, calling it "free market" is less accurate than saying up is toward the ground. Despite the regulations removed (by BOTH parties I might add) over the past couple decades, other regulations have been added, including "fair lending laws" which were also at the core of the collapse, requiring banks to lend mortgages, property loans, personal loans, and revolving credit loans to low income, high risk clients who ended up defaulting in droves - and THAT is the critical crux behind the collapse.

The banking industry is anything BUT a free market. It failed, true. Part (but definitely not all) of the reason it failed was due to inadequate regulations - true. But "failure of the free market system? ABSOLUTE LIE.

Alan Greenspan was a proponent of the free market system to the point he didn't believe fraud needed to be prosecuted and that's basically the path the government followed. As I noted earlier Greenspan believed people would stop investing in something when enough people lost money. That didn't happen with the mortgage market.

The only reason the banks had all that money to loan for mortgages is because people/investment companies kept buying them. If the banks couldn't sell their mortgages they wouldn't have had the money to loan. What we saw was the free market system at work. The banks had worthless IOUs and people/companies kept buying them thinking they were good investments.

Simply put Greenspan believed that when people/investment companies bought those worthless IOUs and found out they were worthless they'd take the loss and stop buying them. Unfortunately, the people/investment companies bought too many before they realized they were worthless. That was the free market system at work. The mortgage crisis has clearly shown it does not work.

Did you watch the video I posted? It's free, on line.

 

[NOVA]

How about getting more information before making a complete fool of yourself?

NAFTA passed 61-38 (1 absent)
of the 61 yea votes, 27 (almost half) were democrats....President Clinton (D), Dem. Congress

SAFTA, while having the same import (if not more) was actually part of the SAARC summits and not a full-fledged trade treaty. It went into effect in 1995 without the need for senate approval under the executive agreement clause you, yourself pointed out. President Clinton (D) Rep. congress

CEMAC...President Clinton (D)...Rep. Congress
So much for trying to spin that one into "it's the republicans' fault"

.

 

[Good Luck]

Alan Greenspan was a proponent of the free market system to the point he didn't believe fraud needed to be prosecuted and that's basically the path the government followed. As I noted earlier Greenspan believed people would stop investing in something when enough people lost money. That didn't happen with the mortgage market.

The only reason the banks had all that money to loan for mortgages is because people/investment companies kept buying them. If the banks couldn't sell their mortgages they wouldn't have had the money to loan. What we saw was the free market system at work. The banks had worthless IOUs and people/companies kept buying them thinking they were good investments.

Simply put Greenspan believed that when people/investment companies bought those worthless IOUs and found out they were worthless they'd take the loss and stop buying them. Unfortunately, the people/investment companies bought too many before they realized they were worthless. That was the free market system at work. The mortgage crisis has clearly shown it does not work.

Did you watch the video I posted? It's free, on line.

One more time: the banking industry is the most regulated industry on this planet. Calling a heavily regulated industry "free market" is pure bullshit. It was FCC regulations that allowed the mortgage companies to hide their high risk mortgages in neatly wrapped and deliberately mislabeled AAA packages. Without those regulations the mortgage bank would have been forced by free market to sell the mortgages for what they were without the neat packaging FCC regulations allow. FCC regulations are not free market - they are the government telling the investment market what they can and cannot do under which circumstances.

Not only that, but it was not the buying and selling of those mortgages that CAUSED the crash. It did extend the damages outside the mortgage banks. But the fault of the crash still lies in the fact that banks were forced by regulation to extend high risk credit in the first place. Had the loans not been high risk, selling them to other banks to generate more lending revenue would have had no detrimental effect. It was the defaulted loans, not the loans themselves. We were in a house full of waste paper and flammable plastics, and you're worried that someone spilled some lighter fluid. By focusing on the accelerant and not the match, you are not being honest in what caused the fire.

 

[apple0154]

One more time: the banking industry is the most regulated industry on this planet. Calling a heavily regulated industry "free market" is pure bullshit. It was FCC regulations that allowed the mortgage companies to hide their high risk mortgages in neatly wrapped and deliberately mislabeled AAA packages. Without those regulations the mortgage bank would have been forced by free market to sell the mortgages for what they were without the neat packaging FCC regulations allow. FCC regulations are not free market - they are the government telling the investment market what they can and cannot do under which circumstances.

Huh? You're not making any sense. Allowing the banks to sell garbage is not regulating them. It's the opposite. That's what the video explains. The banks and every other financial "business" is going to do whatever they can get away with. Allowing them to do so is not regulating them.

Not only that, but it was not the buying and selling of those mortgages that CAUSED the crash. It did extend the damages outside the mortgage banks. But the fault of the crash still lies in the fact that banks were forced by regulation to extend high risk credit in the first place. Had the loans not been high risk, selling them to other banks to generate more lending revenue would have had no detrimental effect. It was the defaulted loans, not the loans themselves. We were in a house full of waste paper and flammable plastics, and you're worried that someone spilled some lighter fluid. By focusing on the accelerant and not the match, you are not being honest in what caused the fire.

Again, as the video explains, an agency of the government was trying to get a handle on what was going on but a few others in government prevented that. There were no regulations regarding those financial instruments. It's all explained in the video.

If the banks had been properly regulated they wouldn't have been allowed to package and sell those mortgages. If they couldn't have sold those mortgages they wouldn't have had such a large amount of money to loan. The "crash" would have been limited to individual banks as it wouldn't have extended beyond the banks.

As for your analogy if there wasn't waste paper, flammable plastics and lighter fluid a match wouldn't have caused a fire. If you are in someone's garage and there are improperly stored containers of gasoline and rags soaked with flammable liquids and you light a cigarette resulting in a fire is the fault of the fire because you lit a cigarette or because of the state of the garage?

Just as one would expect the garage owner to have closed gas containers and flammable rags put in a metal container one expects banks to conduct themselves in a certain way.

There was no government oversight regarding the selling of those bundles. The government (supposedly) didn't know about them. In any case Allan Greenspan didn't want any government interference.

How can one possibly say the banks are overly regulated when Greenspan and a few others stopped a government agency from investigating certain financial transactions?

Have you watched the video?

 

[Crashk]

LOL Are you a professional politician? Is that how you answer questions? By avoiding answering them with a long diatribe?

But, what I can gather, YES, you deny that liberals today are defending socialism rather than denying their socialist agenda. You can deny socialist agenda, but look at your fellow liberals, and their rhetoric.

How about this thread: http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=27551

Your fellow liberals defending socialism.

As for banking, it is the most heavily regulated market in the world. To claim it's failure is an example of "unregulated free market" is an outright lie.

And you completely ignore the background information I gave you with your mindless moral superiority rhetoric. You can't even adjust it for the individual. "You" this and "you" that. No where did I say I support free trade. Yet you put it in there because that is what the program says you must say. You haven't an original thought in that vacuum skull of yours. It's all pre-programmed by your political masters.

Yea, bail out of GM for billions of wasted dollars. Then GM goes bankrupt anyway, restructures as they would have without the bailouts, and goes on. Liberals with their prefrontal lobotomies filled in with pro-government thought processors hail the bailouts as proof government has to be in control. What a fucking laugh. The money is in the pockets of the corporate fat cats that ran GM into the ground - and their bought-off political cronies. They piss on the floor, call it lemonade and you mindless "I want my mommy government" limp dicks lick it up off the floor and beg for more.

What today's liberals cannot seem to grasp is it is not about whether government "cares" for the people or not. Democrat, republican, liberal (in truth socialist progressive), "conservative" (there are not genuine American style conservative politicians left.) - its all about more and more power for the government, and more and more control over the people. Neo-cons use fear of foreign attack to whittle away our liberties. Liberals use domestic fears to do the same. The end result is more power for the government, more powere for the politicians and their billionaire buddies while the people take it up the ass, with stupid twits like you, Midcan, Southern Man and Dixie cheering them on from opposite sides of the playing field.

It's all about power and money, you are correct and I agree. For the last 30 yrs of conservative rule the average American (not Bush's/Reagan's Base) has taken it in the ass. We are now seeing the results of their ideology, wars for resources, lower standard of living, flat/declining wages, the death of the American dream, outsourcing and communists being able to buy our politicians. The Dems have also allowed this and are just as guilty.

The only way for this country to survive is to put people back to work, rebuild our manufacturing base and build the economy from the bottom up. We know trickle down doesn't work for America but is great for cheap labor conservatives who love communist china. This is the real enemy. I am a capitalist, I believe in capitalism, but I can't practice capitalism because the capitalists have taken the capital out of our economic system. When people band together to insure their common survival, I don't see this as socialism I see it as survival.

 

[Good Luck]

Huh? You're not making any sense. Allowing the banks to sell garbage is not regulating them. It's the opposite. That's what the video explains. The banks and every other financial "business" is going to do whatever they can get away with. Allowing them to do so is not regulating them.



Again, as the video explains, an agency of the government was trying to get a handle on what was going on but a few others in government prevented that. There were no regulations regarding those financial instruments. It's all explained in the video.

If the banks had been properly regulated they wouldn't have been allowed to package and sell those mortgages. If they couldn't have sold those mortgages they wouldn't have had such a large amount of money to loan. The "crash" would have been limited to individual banks as it wouldn't have extended beyond the banks.

...

Just as one would expect the garage owner to have closed gas containers and flammable rags put in a metal container one expects banks to conduct themselves in a certain way.

There was no government oversight regarding the selling of those bundles. The government (supposedly) didn't know about them. In any case Allan Greenspan didn't want any government interference.

How can one possibly say the banks are overly regulated when Greenspan and a few others stopped a government agency from investigating certain financial transactions?

Have you watched the video?

Your beloved video leaves a lot out. For instance, it was FCC REGULATIONS that allowed the mortgage loans to be repackaged. A law that says "you must do this to sell financial assets in bundles" is still a regulation even if the results are the opposite of what one desires. The fact is if FCC regulations did not require certain steps in selling financial assets as investments, normal trade laws would have required full disclosure of the content of those investment packages. But FCC regulations say normal trade laws aren't good enough for financial assets, so they created separate regulations that ended up allowing (accidentally on purpose?) the content to be concealed. You can call a bad regulation "lack" of regulations if you want. You would be wrong. LACK of regulation in this instance would have put normal trade laws in place, which would have made the investors think twice.

You are one more on here who needs remedial reading comprehension lessons. Show me ONE place I said the financial industry is OVERLY regulated? I DID say it is the most heavily regulated industry in the world. (TRUE - no other industry has as many laws and regulations on how they conduct business. Problem is they are mostly BAD laws and regulations.) I DID say that I think the better approach would be BETTER regulations as opposed to simply MORE of them. (Especially since the MORE that has occurred so far has caused credit to dry up even more than it was before - a significant factor in the lack of progress in getting the economy going again.) But not ONCE did I say or even imply I think the banks are OVERLY regulated. STUPIDLY regulated, yes, but not overly.

Final point: the prevention of an adequate investigation has nothing to do with regulations or lack thereof. In the first place, good regulations would have PREVENTED this from happening. Regulations are not about finding out what went wrong after the fact. The situation can (and should) be fully investigated in every detail. It does not take regulations to do that - all it takes is the government (including THIS one who is also sitting on their thumbs with their feet dangling) to assign a special investigation. There is plenty of evidence to support the need for a full blown criminal investigation. The take over and government sponsored fire-sale of Washington Mutual has enough suspect activity to probably put a good dozen people in club fed for a couple decades - including .gov officials from FDIC. But nothing will happen because the current admin is as much a part of the scam as the former bunch. And it hass nothing to do with lack of regulations, it has to do with a government as complicit in the goings on as the banks themselves.