No shit! And mark my words she will disappoint all of you fuckers when she starts kowtowing to the banks if she runs for president. Nobody gets elected without the support of the banks and Wall Street. Of course when she does start waffling you twits will start making excuses for her.
Biggest Scam in US Government History - The Federal Reserve
- Thread starter Mariahxxx
- Start date
Mariahxxx
Official Checked Star Member
if thats true then I would gladly admit it. I voted for bush twice as Ive said and I have zero problem saying I was wrong and he sucked donkey cock. I will admit obama has been a massive failure on many of the things he said he would and wouldn't do. no problem saying so.
its the people who refuse to acknowledge when their side is guilty and wrong that is scary (coughing, choking, coughing)
What's very interesting is that there was a study done by the school of economics at Georgetown in 2009 that came to the conclusion that if the banks were more transparent and were more regulated and had more government oversight like they used to up until the 1970s when the economy began to decline more rapidly, that they would be just as profitable as they are now. I guess they are just stuck in criminal behavior and can't imagine doing it honestly.
its the people who refuse to acknowledge when their side is guilty and wrong that is scary (coughing, choking, coughing)
What's very interesting is that there was a study done by the school of economics at Georgetown in 2009 that came to the conclusion that if the banks were more transparent and were more regulated and had more government oversight like they used to up until the 1970s when the economy began to decline more rapidly, that they would be just as profitable as they are now. I guess they are just stuck in criminal behavior and can't imagine doing it honestly.
Mariahxxx
Official Checked Star Member
the republicans blocked her becoming the head of the financial protection bureau that she created so she said fuck you, Ill run for senate against someone they thought was shoe in. She kinda showed them she could win when they never thought she could.
She wants to re institute Glass–Steagall which was responsible for decades of financial stability Glass–Steagall basically means that the banks invest and gamble with their own money, not the account holders. That and NAFTA were Clinton's 2 biggest fuck ups.
She wants to re institute Glass–Steagall which was responsible for decades of financial stability Glass–Steagall basically means that the banks invest and gamble with their own money, not the account holders. That and NAFTA were Clinton's 2 biggest fuck ups.
Mariah now you are rehashing shit from 2 months ago. In a way I understand because all of your threads got locked and I have already addressed all of this. Tonight I am in a lot of pain from surgery and so I am going to just LOL at all you tonight.
Mariahxxx
Official Checked Star Member
I have never posted about Glass–Steagall on here.
yes I did post before about MBNA bank.
Glass–Steagall was very successful. from 1797 until 1933 when Glass–Steagall was formed the US banks crashed about every 15 years. We passed Glass–Steagall and there wasn't a single bank crash until 1982 and that was because Reagan started removing regulations. then more and more were regulations were taken away and then there was none and voila! in 2008 we had the worst banking crash since the great depression.
Allowing the banks for gamble with our money and then if the money is lost the taxpayers have to pay it back. so they blow our money, then we have to replace it again lol and there are people who are trying to fight for this?????????
yes I did post before about MBNA bank.
Glass–Steagall was very successful. from 1797 until 1933 when Glass–Steagall was formed the US banks crashed about every 15 years. We passed Glass–Steagall and there wasn't a single bank crash until 1982 and that was because Reagan started removing regulations. then more and more were regulations were taken away and then there was none and voila! in 2008 we had the worst banking crash since the great depression.
Allowing the banks for gamble with our money and then if the money is lost the taxpayers have to pay it back. so they blow our money, then we have to replace it again lol and there are people who are trying to fight for this?????????
Lol
Mariahxxx
Official Checked Star Member
She has also been fighting to increase minimum wage which the republicans want to eliminate!!!!!!! lol
in 1980 the minimum wage was $3.10 today it's $7.25 but for those of you who are old enough think about how much more everything costs today compared to 1980 and then someone explain how anyone other than a high school student could live on that wage or a workforce that is based on that wage?
this is another amazing video of her just ripping the asshole out of the food industry about the wages they pay how they are saying they couldnt raise their prices 8 cents so they could pay their employees a living wage.
in 1980 the minimum wage was $3.10 today it's $7.25 but for those of you who are old enough think about how much more everything costs today compared to 1980 and then someone explain how anyone other than a high school student could live on that wage or a workforce that is based on that wage?
this is another amazing video of her just ripping the asshole out of the food industry about the wages they pay how they are saying they couldnt raise their prices 8 cents so they could pay their employees a living wage.
Some assistant D.A. just sent me a text saying that she heard I had surgery and wanted to know if she could come over and my face is swollen and bandaged and I dont want her to come over looking like this. I am almost old enough to be her dad. She is very nice to me at the court house so i got a feeling thir might happen. She has some bad timing.
This is why the system is fucked up : She's probably one of the most honest, trustworthy, competent US politician in activity but she wouldn't stand any chance in a presidential election 'cause she wouldn't get any support from the financial industry. The system is so fucked up that it's impossible for someone to run for president without and run a campaign in wich he/she would attack te financial industry or the petroleum industry, etc... Even if he/she would be right, they are some industries that no candidate can go after and still get a chance to win the election
This is what you get when you alow corporations to finance political campaigns : they buy the politicians, promising huga mouth of money for their campaign ix exchange of an agreement that, once the guy's elected he passes laws that would profit to these corporations, even if these laws are bad for the people.
She is coming over anyway LOL. See you fuckers tomorrie.
Mariahxxx
Official Checked Star Member
Well the financial industry is important, but they are not everything. the amrican people vote and all they need to do is listen to her speak a few times and then whoever she debates better come with an A game because she is hardcore with facts and not afraid of confrontation.
if she gets a platform she'll win yet another democratic landslide without the financial industry.
if she gets a platform she'll win yet another democratic landslide without the financial industry.
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
I agree with Jefferson's words on the dangers of overly powerful banks - especially as it applies to international bankers (and no, that is NOT code for any particular group):
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. – Thomas Jefferson
And I agree with George Washington's words on the dangers of political partisanship and loyalty to party over loyalty to the republic:
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. -- George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
But I also (sadly) accept, even if I don't want to agree with it, the line from Machiavelli's The Prince(?):
"He who builds on the people, builds on the mud.”
It simply takes too much money to gain real power in this nation now. And if it hadn't been so easy to corrupt and bastardize a grassroots movement, and mislead well meaning, though extremely naive people, the TEA Party could have been another United We Stand. But it took a billionaire to make United We Stand what it (initially) was. And now the TEA Party is just a radical right mouthpiece of the GOP, where chameleon-like neocons and paranoid schizo xenophobes have taken up residence.
I've listened and read a lot about what Ron Paul (and several others) have had to say about the Fed's continued existence. My struggle is, OK, but we have what we have now... so if you simply dissolve the Fed, who takes over monetary policy? The Congress? The President? Can you imagine how completely & totally fucked we would all be if Obama and Johnny Boner were arguing over monetary policy the way they have fiscal policy???
I'm not a fan of the Fed. But in light of the glaring FACT that we are currently running without a real fiscal policy in this country (blame whichever side you want... or to be fair, both), if not for Bernanke and the Fed, I have no doubt that things would be a whole lot worse right now. I'm not giving the Fed or bankers in general a pass (they're a slimy, slithery bunch... I know, I used to be one), but it was Volker who made the biggest difference in the 80's and Bernanke in the 2000's. And yeah, Weird Al Greespan made a pretty big difference in the late 90's... though not for the good. So my only question is, what body would replace the Fed? Who would decide and execute monetary policy in its absence??? Would we, of the great unwashed masses, decide monetary policy by our votes? We The People... who can't balance our checkbooks or manage our credit card debt? :dunno:
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. – Thomas Jefferson
And I agree with George Washington's words on the dangers of political partisanship and loyalty to party over loyalty to the republic:
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. -- George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
But I also (sadly) accept, even if I don't want to agree with it, the line from Machiavelli's The Prince(?):
"He who builds on the people, builds on the mud.”
It simply takes too much money to gain real power in this nation now. And if it hadn't been so easy to corrupt and bastardize a grassroots movement, and mislead well meaning, though extremely naive people, the TEA Party could have been another United We Stand. But it took a billionaire to make United We Stand what it (initially) was. And now the TEA Party is just a radical right mouthpiece of the GOP, where chameleon-like neocons and paranoid schizo xenophobes have taken up residence.
I've listened and read a lot about what Ron Paul (and several others) have had to say about the Fed's continued existence. My struggle is, OK, but we have what we have now... so if you simply dissolve the Fed, who takes over monetary policy? The Congress? The President? Can you imagine how completely & totally fucked we would all be if Obama and Johnny Boner were arguing over monetary policy the way they have fiscal policy???
I'm not a fan of the Fed. But in light of the glaring FACT that we are currently running without a real fiscal policy in this country (blame whichever side you want... or to be fair, both), if not for Bernanke and the Fed, I have no doubt that things would be a whole lot worse right now. I'm not giving the Fed or bankers in general a pass (they're a slimy, slithery bunch... I know, I used to be one), but it was Volker who made the biggest difference in the 80's and Bernanke in the 2000's. And yeah, Weird Al Greespan made a pretty big difference in the late 90's... though not for the good. So my only question is, what body would replace the Fed? Who would decide and execute monetary policy in its absence??? Would we, of the great unwashed masses, decide monetary policy by our votes? We The People... who can't balance our checkbooks or manage our credit card debt? :dunno:
I learn more about America from porn forums than I ever did in schools... Maybe they should use that as argument in UK internet censorship protests... 
Mariahxxx
Official Checked Star Member
well as of today there is almost zero banking regulation and there needs to be. Glass–Steagall worked and Elizabeth Warren is being fought to the death by the right to keep it from being put back in place.
How can anyone justify allowing a bank to play with people's money in anyway they wish, in total secrecy and not be responsible if they fuck up and lose it? The easiest way to avoid that happening is to forbid them from doing so. Simple logic there but then that would mean they would have to be accountable and we can't have that now can we republicans?
How can anyone justify allowing a bank to play with people's money in anyway they wish, in total secrecy and not be responsible if they fuck up and lose it? The easiest way to avoid that happening is to forbid them from doing so. Simple logic there but then that would mean they would have to be accountable and we can't have that now can we republicans?
Similar threads
