Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Charles Rangel (D) New York

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.

Re: Charles Rangel (D) New York

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sun 21 Sep 2008, 08:36:35

8) Back to Charlie Tax Cheat Rangel for a moment if I may. what a way to hand an issue to the McCain camp. I notice a thundering silence from the Obama camp and Pelosies statement is just ludicrous. Imagine during the debates McCain asking Obama if he believes that someone who can not make out and pay his own taxes properly should write tax law for the rest of us. It will be like Jackie Gleason caught flat footed by Alice. "Ralph, Whats the meaning of this?" "Humma ......Humma...... HUUmmah" Lets hope they stand by their man right up to election day.

On the other tack this thread has taken how about the world as the Dems would make it if they had no GOP to keep them in check?? National health care for sure, higher buisness taxes, Carbon taxes, nationalised industries, How far would they get before the bills came due?
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 14897
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Charles Rangel (D) New York

Unread postby Carlhole » Sun 21 Sep 2008, 09:06:27

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', ' ')I'm asking you to describe what life in America would be like if there simply WERE no Democrats.


That's easy.

"Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today


'Imagine' seems to have been written as an paean to atheist Communism.

John Lennon was a bed-wetting Socialist!
Last edited by Carlhole on Sun 21 Sep 2008, 12:04:43, edited 2 times in total.
Carlhole
 

Re: Charles Rangel (D) New York

Unread postby Carlhole » Sun 21 Sep 2008, 09:13:30

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vtsnowedin', ' ')On the other tack this thread has taken how about the world as the Dems would make it if they had no GOP to keep them in check?? National health care for sure, higher buisness taxes, Carbon taxes, nationalised industries, How far would they get before the bills came due?


Plantagenet has not been able to cough up even THAT much about what policies the Republicans would implement if that party were completely unimpeded.

And since he continually posts all sorts of trivialities attacking the Dems, I'm just wondering what sort of world he imagines if there were only Republicans.

He evades the simple question.
Carlhole
 

Re: Charles Rangel (D) New York

Unread postby AlexdeLarge » Sun 21 Sep 2008, 11:45:17

If you looking for someone to blame....look in the mirror. Blind, partisanship voting is what got us in this mess. ON BOTH SIDES!!

Rangel is unfit for office and should be impeached. So should many others of both parties.

Niether Obama or McCain are fit to hold the job of President and are not up to the challenge that faces America and the world.

The blame starts at your front porch. Beginning with the FOOLS who overspend and do not save and bought houses they could not afford. It ends with the greedy wallstreet investment banker taking worthlesss paper and selling it to other bozos. And don't forget the politicians who were in on the scam to fark all of us to stay in power.

Guess what Bingo. There will be no nationalized health care, no free college, no social security, no medicare, no additional military spending, no exploration of mars, no research into green sources of energy.

We are flat broke and its time to go back to work. It will take decades to dig our way out of this one.................and we are all to blame!
Viddy well, little brother. Viddy well.
User avatar
AlexdeLarge
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1806
Joined: Tue 20 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: I have a whole ward

Re: Charles Rangel (D) New York

Unread postby dinopello » Sun 21 Sep 2008, 12:07:27

I pretty much agree with your whole rant, Mr deLarge. As far as the candidates being up to the challenge though, who is ? Is the system up to the challenge ?
User avatar
dinopello
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6088
Joined: Fri 13 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: The Urban Village

Re: Charles Rangel (D) New York

Unread postby Plantagenet » Sun 21 Sep 2008, 12:55:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vtsnowedin', ' ') the world as the Dems would make it if they had no GOP to keep them in check?? .... How far would they get before the bills came due?


The bills for the programs the dems have already instituted are coming due now.

The government subsidizing mortgages at Fannie and Freddie......? Hey those are liberal programs......the past chairmen of Fannie and Freddie are major players in Obama's campaign, and Obama himself is the second largest recipient of campaign donations from Fannie and Freddie.....right after Chris Dodd, the dem who chaired the committee that was supposedly overseeing Fannie and Freddie.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Charles Rangel (D) New York

Unread postby Carlhole » Sun 21 Sep 2008, 13:04:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dinopello', 'I') pretty much agree with your whole rant, Mr deLarge. As far as the candidates being up to the challenge though, who is ? Is the system up to the challenge ?


I happened to catch Ron Paul on CNN with Wolf Blitzer a little bit ago.

He was saying that neither one of the candidates were talking about the Federal Reserve or the predictable dire consequences that unregulated financial institutions would create.

And it's true. Neither one of the candidates is talking about anything especially important. They are not talking about the Federal Reserve's cheap money policy of the last 15 years or so and especially since 2001. The candidates have their own rarefied political debate which is condensed into sound bites for the public.

Wolf Blitzer asked him: "Which candidate are you going to vote for in November?" To which Ron Paul replied, "Not one of these two".

And I agree with him. The two parties choose to frame their arguments so as to manufacture a mostly illusory choice for the public to "decide". But there are no really significant differences between the two parties.

The two parties are about as different as football teams from San Francisco and Pittsburgh, though each team will attract its rabid fans. That seems to be what Plantagenet is essentially - a rabid fan. He doesn't appear to be able to elaborate much on why he is so fervently anti-Democrat or what a totally Republican Congress would create for American life.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: Charles Rangel (D) New York

Unread postby Plantagenet » Sun 21 Sep 2008, 13:20:55

Hi Carlhole: I'm surprised you are still pushing Ron Paul. How can you continue to be a rabid fan of Ron Paul when (1) he lost every election he ran in. He is no longer even running, and (2) Ron Paul's peak oil proposals stink.... he actually doesn't have any.

Back here in the real world, I think the US needs more energy development to deal with the coming effects of Peak Oil. The democrats oppose more energy development, but the republicans want to pursue development of every kind of energy available--- and thats exactly what I'd like to see done.

In particular:

1. I would expect the Republicans to pass Roscoe Barnett's (R-Md) bill and follow Palin's plan to open ANWR
2. They'd pass Dana Rohrbacher's (R-Ca) bill to suspend the EIS process for new solar power plants.
3. They'd pursue McCain's plan to build nuclear power plants
4. They'd pursue McCain's plan to open the OCS to drilling
5. They'd pursue other energy options (wind, solar, hydrogen, geothermal, advanced biofuels).
6. McCain wants to phase out the damaging ethanol subsidies that are driving food prices higher (McCain has opposed them for years and the dem congress just doubled them in next year's budget).
Last edited by Plantagenet on Sun 21 Sep 2008, 13:52:43, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Charles Rangel (D) New York

Unread postby Carlhole » Sun 21 Sep 2008, 13:50:41

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'H')ow can you be such a rabid fan of Ron Paul's peak oil proposals, considering he actually doesn't have any?


Jeezus. Agreeing with Ron Paul on a point he's made does not a "rabid fan" make.

You, OTOH, post all sorts of trivial, Democrat-bashing threads that have nothing to do with energy and when queried about it, cannot provide much of an answer as to WHY you post them.

Can you imagine how you would be squawking if it were a Democratic Administration that had socialized the whole US financial industry? The tax-payers now virtually OWN Wall Street!

Deregulation has been largely a Republican football to carry down field. And the Bush Administration has gotten behind deregulation in a very big way for the past 8 years. Deregulation combined with the cheap-money policies of the Federal Reserve have lead to this catastrophic financial disaster. Alan Greenspan was a Republican.

McCain is on record as a huge supporter of deregulation in all areas whether its transportation, financial industry, medicine or whatever. He has been way over there with the Right Wing on the issue of deregulation for year. Yet you only squawk about trivial things that the Democrats do.

I'm now a registered Independent. I don't care for the two-party system in this country and I've explained why in several different threads. It dumbs down the whole process of political discourse and choice. It's a system that maintains the monopoly for the two predominant parties (who really don't have a huge disagreement on most things compared the party positions of Parliaments in other countries).

Mostly what the Democrats and Republicans do is put on Kabuki theatre for public consumption.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: Charles Rangel (D) New York

Unread postby AlexdeLarge » Sun 21 Sep 2008, 13:56:47

The first step is to replace the entire leadership of the house and senate. We must have term limits. Most of our leaders stay in power due to name recognition alone and are then buoyed up by partisan politics and special interests groups. The washington bureaucracy most also go. Though there are some good civil servants, many exist to perpetuate their job. Government must get smaller!!!!!

The only way to do this is from the bottom. A grass roots, non partisan drive for a constitutional convention. There, by following the guidelines of the constitution, it can be amended by the people to change what needs to be changed.

If you are waiting for your current "elected" leadership to change things................you are farking dreaming. It's not that fool Obama who's only claim to fame is "chosing" to be black. It's not that studgy old McCain, who would not be there except for his war record.

It's time for a revolution by following the document our founders created and which is now ignored.

I say we start a grass roots, peoples drive for a constitutional convention , led by the States....and throw all the bums in DC out!
Viddy well, little brother. Viddy well.
User avatar
AlexdeLarge
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1806
Joined: Tue 20 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: I have a whole ward

Re: Charles Rangel (D) New York

Unread postby Plantagenet » Sun 21 Sep 2008, 14:02:51

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '
')Deregulation has been largely a Republican football to carry down field. And the Bush Administration has gotten behind deregulation in a very big way for the past 8 years.


Most people don't understand what has happened at Fannie and Freddie and the banks. Obama has provided them with a boogie man to blame, i.e. "deregulation."

Precisely what "deregulation" do you think caused the problems? Can you be more specific?

The problem with your gullibility in mindlessly parotting Obama's boogie man is that the problems at the banks aren't caused by "deregulation." The current problem has been caused by STRICTER regulations put in place after ENRON collapsed.

These new "ENRON" rules require that when an investment vehicle starts to lose money, the entire investment is written off as valueless. The rule was designed to stop companies like ENRON from carrying complex investments on their books and listing them as profitible when they are losing money.

This regulation, when applied to mortgage loans, means that when a house is depreciated in value from 500 k to 350 k, the bundle of investments holding the mortgate is forced to write off the entire investment as valueless, when the mortgage holder still has 350 K in a foreclosed house. The new, stricter regulations mean that banks and investment houses appear to be billions in debt because their mortgage investments must all be written off, when these investments actually still are quite valuable because they are based on whatever real equity remains in the houses.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: Charles Rangel (D) New York

Unread postby Carlhole » Sun 21 Sep 2008, 14:38:27

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '
')Deregulation has been largely a Republican football to carry down field. And the Bush Administration has gotten behind deregulation in a very big way for the past 8 years.


These new "ENRON" rules require that when an investment vehicle starts to lose money, the entire investment is written off as valueless.


I'm reading over The Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis and cannot see anything about Enron mentioned at all.

The Sub-Prime Crisis was caused by (1) the Federal Reserve's cheap money policy, (2) A lack of oversight over the qualifications of borrowers, and (3) the creation of derivatives such as CDOs which any financial institution could purchase for trade or hold on their books.

The crisis emerged from within a larger trend of financial deregulation in general. The regulatory controls referred in the Glass-Steagal Act of '32 and '33 after the stock market crash of '29 were designed to avoid the hazards of exposing depository funds to market risk and limiting the powers of investment banks. Glass-Steagal has been systematically dismantled in recent years. McCain campaign advisor Phil Gramm has been one of the primary proponents of abolishing Glass-Steagal.

The Repeal Of The Act

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wiki', 'T')he bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-TX) and in the House of Representatives by James Leach (R-IA) in 1999. The bills were passed by a 54-44 vote along party lines with Republican support in the Senate[8] and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives[9]. Nov 4, 1999: After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bipartisan bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8-1 and in the House: 362-57-15. Without forcing a veto vote, this bipartisan, veto proof legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999. [10]

The banking industry had been seeking the repeal of Glass-Steagall since at least the 1980s. In 1987 the Congressional Research Service prepared a report which explored the case for preserving Glass-Steagall and the case against preserving the act.[11]

The repeal enabled commercial lenders such as Citigroup, the largest U.S. bank by assets, to underwrite and trade instruments such as mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations and establish so-called structured investment vehicles, or SIVs, that bought those securities. Citigroup played a major part in the repeal. Then called Citicorp, the company merged with Travelers Insurance company the year before using loopholes in Glass-Steagall that allowed for temporary exemptions. With lobbying led by Roger Levy, the "finance, insurance and real estate industries together are regularly the largest campaign contributors and biggest spenders on lobbying of all business sectors [in 1999]. They laid out more than $200 million for lobbying in 1998, according to the Center for Responsive Politics..." These industries succeeded in their two decades long effort to repeal the act.[12]
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: Charles Rangel (D) New York

Unread postby Plantagenet » Sun 21 Sep 2008, 15:03:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '
')I.... cannot see anything about Enron mentioned at all.


You are mindlessly parotting Obama's boogie man of "deregulation" but you don't know about the ENRON debacle at the end of the Clinton administration and the new righter regulations introduced as a result of it?

You don't know that regulations on companies are TIGHTER now rather then looser as a result of the post-ENRON reforms?

The bill passed to tighten up regulations after the ENRON debacle was the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley law. Have you heard of that?
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: Charles Rangel (D) New York

Unread postby Plantagenet » Sun 21 Sep 2008, 15:14:11

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Pub.L. 107-204, 116 Stat. 745, enacted 2002-07-30), also known as the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 and commonly called SOX or Sarbox; is a United States federal law enacted on July 30, 2002 in response to a number of major corporate and accounting scandals including those affecting Enron, Tyco International, Adelphia, Peregrine Systems and WorldCom. These scandals, which cost investors billions of dollars when the share prices of the affected companies collapsed, shook public confidence in the nation's securities markets. Named after sponsors Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) and Representative Michael G. Oxley (R-OH), the Act was approved by the House by a vote of 334-90 and by the Senate 99-0. President George W. Bush signed it into law, stating it included "the most far-reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt."[1]
The legislation establishes new or enhanced standards for all U.S. public company boards, management, and public accounting firms... The Act contains 11 titles, or sections, ranging from additional Corporate Board responsibilities to criminal penalties, and requires the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to implement rulings on requirements to comply with the new law.....Supporters contend that the legislation was necessary and has played a useful role in restoring public confidence in the nation's capital markets by, among other things, strengthening corporate accounting controls.


-----------
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Charles Rangel (D) New York

Unread postby PenultimateManStanding » Sun 21 Sep 2008, 15:26:03

We can debate the details all we wish, but the overall pattern is clear enough: we chopped down all the trees to haul the big statues from the quarry down to overlook the lonesome vast blue ocean.

Image
Turn those Machines back On! - Don Ameche in Trading Places
User avatar
PenultimateManStanding
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11363
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Neither Here Nor There

Re: Charles Rangel (D) New York

Unread postby Carlhole » Sun 21 Sep 2008, 15:40:02

Look, if Sarbanes-Oxley were important to the current financial meltdown, why is it not even mentioned in The Sub-Prime Crisis piece on Wikipedia? And when you look up Sarbanes-Oxley on Wikipedia, The Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis is not mentioned there either.

You just flat don't know WTF you're talking about.

Sarbanes-Oxley has to do with accounting rules for corporations and overseeing auditors of corporate books. It was enacted to fix accounting loopholes that allowed Enron to play that complex holding company shell game with corporate liabilities.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wiki', 'T')he Act establishes a new quasi-public agency, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, or PCAOB, which is charged with overseeing, regulating, inspecting, and disciplining accounting firms in their roles as auditors of public companies. The Act also covers issues such as auditor independence, corporate governance, internal control assessment, and enhanced financial disclosure.


Sarbanes-Oxley has absolutely nothing to do with the Fed's cheap money policy that deliberately created a long-term housing bubble, nor the deregulation environment that allowed the GSE's to guarantee questionable mortgages, nor the complete lack of oversight of derivatives creation and proliferation that the repeal of Glass-Steagal helped along tremendously.

All this has led to the $1 trillion socialization of the US financial industry. What a great career result for right wing Republican, Phil "It's only a mental recession" Gramm, chief campaign advisor to that old fart you love so much, John McCain - both old farts BIG champions of deregulation.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: Charles Rangel (D) New York

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sun 21 Sep 2008, 15:49:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '
')Deregulation has been largely a Republican football to carry down field. And the Bush Administration has gotten behind deregulation in a very big way for the past 8 years.


Most people don't understand what has happened at Fannie and Freddie and the banks. Obama has provided them with a boogie man to blame, i.e. "deregulation."

Precisely what "deregulation" do you think caused the problems? Can you be more specific?

The problem with your gullibility in mindlessly parotting Obama's boogie man is that the problems at the banks aren't caused by "deregulation." The current problem has been caused by STRICTER regulations put in place after ENRON collapsed.

These new "ENRON" rules require that when an investment vehicle starts to lose money, the entire investment is written off as valueless. The rule was designed to stop companies like ENRON from carrying complex investments on their books and listing them as profitible when they are losing money.

This regulation, when applied to mortgage loans, means that when a house is depreciated in value from 500 k to 350 k, the bundle of investments holding the mortgate is forced to write off the entire investment as valueless, when the mortgage holder still has 350 K in a foreclosed house. The new, stricter regulations mean that banks and investment houses appear to be billions in debt because their mortgage investments must all be written off, when these investments actually still are quite valuable because they are based on whatever real equity remains in the houses.


I think I detect an over simplification here. Is it not true that these loans were heavily leveraged and all they had to decline was five percent in value, or some other absurdly low percentage, and all the collateral the banks had in the loan became unsupported?
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 14897
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Charles Rangel (D) New York

Unread postby Carlhole » Sun 21 Sep 2008, 15:58:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'W')e can debate the details all we wish, but the overall pattern is clear enough: we chopped down all the trees to haul the big statues from the quarry down to overlook the lonesome vast blue ocean.

Image


Wrong again, PMS.

In fact, not only are you completely wrong, you are WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!!

Those statues, in fact, face inwards and look over the denuded island's interior.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: Charles Rangel (D) New York

Unread postby Plantagenet » Sun 21 Sep 2008, 15:58:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '
')You just flat don't know WTF you're talking about.


No. You don't know WTF you're talking about.

Sarbanes-Oxley has to do with accounting rules for corporations, including banks. It was enacted to fix accounting loopholes that allowed Enron and other companies to play shell games with futures investments and with their stock. It requires complete financial disclosure under strict rules which result in rapid write downs of assets showing a loss. That is precisely the issue with the banks....they are showing major losses because they have been forced by the Sarbanes Oxley rules to write down all of their non-performing mortgate loans.

The 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley law was NOT deregulation.

The 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley law was TIGHTER regulation.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: Charles Rangel (D) New York

Unread postby Carlhole » Sun 21 Sep 2008, 16:02:59

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '
')You just flat don't know WTF you're talking about.


No. You don't know WTF you're talking about.

Sarbanes-Oxley has to do with accounting rules for corporations, including banks. It was enacted to fix accounting loopholes that allowed Enron and other companies to play shell games with futures investments and with their stock. It requires complete financial disclosure under strict rules which result in rapid write downs of assets showing a loss. That is precisely the issue with the banks....they are showing major losses because they have been forced by the Sarbanes Oxley rules to write down all of their non-performing mortgate loans.

The 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley law was NOT deregulation.

The 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley law was TIGHTER regulation.


I can only repeat my question to you:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'L')ook, if Sarbanes-Oxley were important to the current financial meltdown, why is it not even mentioned in The Sub-Prime Crisis piece on Wikipedia? And when you look up Sarbanes-Oxley on Wikipedia, The Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis is not mentioned there either. AT ALL!!

Sarbanes-Oxley has to do with accounting rules for corporations and overseeing auditors of corporate books. It was enacted to fix accounting loopholes that allowed Enron to play that complex holding company shell game with corporate liabilities.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wiki', 'T')he Act establishes a new quasi-public agency, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, or PCAOB, which is charged with overseeing, regulating, inspecting, and disciplining accounting firms in their roles as auditors of public companies. The Act also covers issues such as auditor independence, corporate governance, internal control assessment, and enhanced financial disclosure.


Sarbanes-Oxley has absolutely nothing to do with the Fed's cheap money policy that deliberately created a long-term housing bubble, nor the deregulation environment that allowed the GSE's to guarantee questionable mortgages, nor the complete lack of oversight of derivatives creation and proliferation that the repeal of Glass-Steagal helped along tremendously.

All this has led to the $1 trillion socialization of the US financial industry. What a great career result for right wing Republican, Phil Gramm who championed deregulation for years and who has been a chief campaign advisor to John McCain


I think I'll trust Wikipedia over you, Plant. You don't know WTF you're talking about.
Carlhole
 
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 50 guests