The term "too big to fail" should have never been allowed to enter the English lexicon.

I like the "you drop the hammer on the little guy every day" part at the end.

She'll come out with more regulations to solve the problem. We are definitely lacking in that area. A few more laws on the books (maybe an additional 2,000 or 3,000 pages) will cure all ills.

I lean more toward fairly enforcing laws currently on the books, personally.

(02-17-2013 07:55 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  She'll come out with more regulations to solve the problem. We are definitely lacking in that area. A few more laws on the books (maybe an additional 2,000 or 3,000 pages) will cure all ills.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

(02-17-2013 08:29 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-17-2013 07:55 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  She'll come out with more regulations to solve the problem. We are definitely lacking in that area. A few more laws on the books (maybe an additional 2,000 or 3,000 pages) will cure all ills.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

Of course it does.

(02-17-2013 08:30 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(02-17-2013 08:29 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-17-2013 07:55 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  She'll come out with more regulations to solve the problem. We are definitely lacking in that area. A few more laws on the books (maybe an additional 2,000 or 3,000 pages) will cure all ills.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

Of course it does.

As opposed to you who wants there to be the Wall Street wild west where anything goes(oh, the current laws are loophole filled crap so look forward to another bank meltdown).

(02-17-2013 08:36 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-17-2013 08:30 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(02-17-2013 08:29 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-17-2013 07:55 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  She'll come out with more regulations to solve the problem. We are definitely lacking in that area. A few more laws on the books (maybe an additional 2,000 or 3,000 pages) will cure all ills.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

Of course it does.

As opposed to you who wants there to be the Wall Street wild west where anything goes(oh, the current laws are loophole filled crap so look forward to another bank meltdown).

How's about re-reading post #4 in this thread, Robs.

Wait. That presupposes that you read it the first time.

(02-17-2013 08:05 PM)Smaug Wrote:  I lean more toward fairly enforcing laws currently on the books, personally.

Exactly. Why enact more laws you're only going to ignore.

(02-17-2013 08:44 PM)Cletus Wrote:  

(02-17-2013 08:05 PM)Smaug Wrote:  I lean more toward fairly enforcing laws currently on the books, personally.

Exactly. Why enact more laws you're only going to ignore.

Gives them something to do and keeps them off the streets?

(02-17-2013 08:41 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(02-17-2013 08:36 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-17-2013 08:30 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(02-17-2013 08:29 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-17-2013 07:55 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  She'll come out with more regulations to solve the problem. We are definitely lacking in that area. A few more laws on the books (maybe an additional 2,000 or 3,000 pages) will cure all ills.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

Of course it does.

As opposed to you who wants there to be the Wall Street wild west where anything goes(oh, the current laws are loophole filled crap so look forward to another bank meltdown).

How's about re-reading post #4 in this thread, Robs.

Wait. That presupposes that you read it the first time.

Yes, I read it. Guess what? The current laws are prettty much worthless. If they were worth a damn, we wouldn't be where we are now.

(02-17-2013 11:42 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-17-2013 08:41 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(02-17-2013 08:36 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-17-2013 08:30 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(02-17-2013 08:29 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Sounds like a good idea to me.

Of course it does.

As opposed to you who wants there to be the Wall Street wild west where anything goes(oh, the current laws are loophole filled crap so look forward to another bank meltdown).

How's about re-reading post #4 in this thread, Robs.

Wait. That presupposes that you read it the first time.

Yes, I read it. Guess what? The current laws are prettty much worthless. If they were worth a damn, we wouldn't be where we are now.

Well, we'd have to enforce them to know, wouldn't we?

(02-18-2013 11:29 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(02-17-2013 11:42 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-17-2013 08:41 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(02-17-2013 08:36 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-17-2013 08:30 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Of course it does.

As opposed to you who wants there to be the Wall Street wild west where anything goes(oh, the current laws are loophole filled crap so look forward to another bank meltdown).

How's about re-reading post #4 in this thread, Robs.

Wait. That presupposes that you read it the first time.

Yes, I read it. Guess what? The current laws are prettty much worthless. If they were worth a damn, we wouldn't be where we are now.

Well, we'd have to enforce them to know, wouldn't we?

Problem is that the banksters get around those laws using loopholes so the laws that are on the books are ineffective.

Did you watch the video?

That's our own Justice Department saying they let big banks buy their way out of trouble.

No loopholes. Just "We gotcha. Write us a check and we'll let it slide."

Geez, Robs. For such I champion of the little guy, I'd have thought that'd burn you up.

(02-18-2013 11:56 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-18-2013 11:29 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(02-17-2013 11:42 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-17-2013 08:41 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(02-17-2013 08:36 PM)RobertN Wrote:  As opposed to you who wants there to be the Wall Street wild west where anything goes(oh, the current laws are loophole filled crap so look forward to another bank meltdown).

How's about re-reading post #4 in this thread, Robs.

Wait. That presupposes that you read it the first time.

Yes, I read it. Guess what? The current laws are prettty much worthless. If they were worth a damn, we wouldn't be where we are now.

Well, we'd have to enforce them to know, wouldn't we?

Problem is that the banksters get around those laws using loopholes so the laws that are on the books are ineffective.

Can't blame the banks for that then, can we? I'd look at whoever made the laws

She was back at it today.

Quote:WARREN: ... And I'm asking, what does it take, even to say, here's where the line is. We're going to draw a line here, and if you cross that line, you're at risk for having your bank closed?

...

COHEN: But I'm not going to get into some hypothetical line drawing exercise.

WARREN: Well it's somewhere beyond $881 million of drug money.

Quote:WARREN: I understand that I'm over my time. And I'll just say here, if you're caught with an ounce of cocaine, the chances are good you're going to go to jail. If it happens repeatedly you may go to jail for the rest of your life. But evidently, if you launder nearly a billion dollars for drug cartels and violate our international sanctions, your company pays a fine and you go home and sleep in your own bed at night. Every single individual associated with this. I just, I think that's fundamentally wrong.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-07...-down-bank

(02-18-2013 11:56 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-18-2013 11:29 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(02-17-2013 11:42 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Yes, I read it. Guess what? The current laws are prettty much worthless. If they were worth a damn, we wouldn't be where we are now.

Well, we'd have to enforce them to know, wouldn't we?

Problem is that the banksters get around those laws using loopholes so the laws that are on the books are ineffective.

The problem does not appear to be with the existing laws, but rather with their lack of enforcement.

Quote:“I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them,” Holder said. . . .

Grassley and Sen. Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat, have been pushing the Justice Department on the issue and have asked for the names of the outside “experts” officials say advised them that it would threaten financial stability to prosecute big banks. . . .

In what has become known as the “Geithner doctrine,” documented by numerous eyewitnesses to the administration’s deliberations on the financial crisis, the former Treasury chief consistently advocated preservation of the banks as the paramount objective in any measure.

As a result, as Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts noted in a statement following Holder’s testimony Wednesday: “It has been almost five years since the financial crisis, but the big banks are still too big to fail … and are still not being held fully accountable for breaking the law.”

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/holder-...2013-03-07

At least Holder is consistent - resisting providing information to congress regardless of the topic. Good thing this is the most transparent administration in history.

Warren and Paul have really impressed me with their intellect. I wish more politicians would take a stand.