Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Financial Regulations -- The Senate got this done "quick"

123457»

Posts

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Elizabeth Warren thinks it's a pretty good piece of legislation. Not everything she wanted, but good.

    My cousin made this game: Gem Pop. It's legitimately fun, particularly for people who enjoy Bejewled, Dr. Mario, Tetris, etc. kinds of games. Only two bucks! If you try it out, PM me with what you think of it.
  • Just_Bri_ThanksJust_Bri_Thanks This meeting's about politics. Facts won't help. The HoleRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    Why do I keep reading headlines about how this got watered down?

    Lisa : "Which one's Ed and which one's Larry?"
    Ed & Larry : "Doesn't matter."

    I recently was gifted a thing in Steam. If it was from you, thank you very much!
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Because the best stuff might not make it in, but we were never going to get the best stuff. We got a bill that is far better than you would have expected from the Senate.

    My cousin made this game: Gem Pop. It's legitimately fun, particularly for people who enjoy Bejewled, Dr. Mario, Tetris, etc. kinds of games. Only two bucks! If you try it out, PM me with what you think of it.
  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    We still got things dealing with derivites and CDOs right? If we don't what's the point of it?

    Also I'd love me something with bank overdrafts, they extracted nearly 50 billion last year in fees from poor people by fun perfectly legal mechanisms like changing the chronology of purchases to produce overdrafts (eg: you have a balance of $500, you buy $50 worth of $1 items and then pay a $450 bill and then a $30 charge comes through for something, bank reorders it as -$450, -$30, -$1*50 and you get many hundreds of dollars in fees for $30 in overdrafts)

  • KhildithKhildith Registered User regular
    We still got things dealing with derivites and CDOs right? If we don't what's the point of it?

    Also I'd love me something with bank overdrafts, they extracted nearly 50 billion last year in fees from poor people by fun perfectly legal mechanisms like changing the chronology of purchases to produce overdrafts (eg: you have a balance of $500, you buy $50 worth of $1 items and then pay a $450 bill and then a $30 charge comes through for something, bank reorders it as -$450, -$30, -$1*50 and you get many hundreds of dollars in fees for $30 in overdrafts)

    As a poor college student, I've experienced that a couple times. I just thought it was coincidence, but it makes total sense for it to be on purpose.

    steam_sig.png
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    I really hope the consumer Protection Agency ends up outside the Fed

    the Fed is in the banks pockets and is a terrible regulation agency
    The Fed isn't a bad regulator if its got a mandate. The rest of them, not so much. The key here is the funding source. The Fed is funded internally. None of the others are.

  • AegisAegis Registered User regular
    Surprised this hasn't been updated recently but it looks like this bill came out of conference committee mostly as expected/unmolested? The Volcker Rule and Derivatives regulation remained in it though I think capital requirements for banks are still unsure.

  • YougottawannaYougottawanna Registered User regular
    Finreg is great for the wonk chart industry

    chart!

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Steve Forbes, dipshit:
    Good news: Financial reform bill may still fail b/c of loss of Byrd vote & 2nd thoughts from Sen Brown

    My cousin made this game: Gem Pop. It's legitimately fun, particularly for people who enjoy Bejewled, Dr. Mario, Tetris, etc. kinds of games. Only two bucks! If you try it out, PM me with what you think of it.
  • AegisAegis Registered User regular
    I...thought it's gone through all the votes it needs?

    Also, has Byrd ever done anything good in his 93 years?

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Nope, the conference version still has to pass both Houses. And Byrd was a (very, VERY) mixed bag. He was smart enough to recant the racism he grew up in later in life and realized that Iraq was a stupid fucking idea (probably because of his support of Vietnam...). He's responsible for some of the dumber Senate reforms but was generally a solid Democratic vote. He was by no means the best Democrat, but he was better than a lot of them.

    My cousin made this game: Gem Pop. It's legitimately fun, particularly for people who enjoy Bejewled, Dr. Mario, Tetris, etc. kinds of games. Only two bucks! If you try it out, PM me with what you think of it.
  • AegisAegis Registered User regular
    Ah. Being a Canadian and living through the softwood lumber dispute, I've always held a dislike for Byrd mainly because of the Byrd Amendment.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    My cousin made this game: Gem Pop. It's legitimately fun, particularly for people who enjoy Bejewled, Dr. Mario, Tetris, etc. kinds of games. Only two bucks! If you try it out, PM me with what you think of it.
  • YougottawannaYougottawanna Registered User regular
    God Scott Brown is such a silly goose

    Remember when they thought they might be able to get Finreg, cap and trade, AND immigration reform all done before November?

  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    Woo it passed. That was quick-ish.

    7521745260_e8e0fc52b8_o.jpg
    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • SpoitSpoit *twitch twitch* Registered User regular
    So what does this bill mean? Does it cave in to companies and make thing worse? Should we scratch it up as a victory that something got passed at all?

    camo_sig2.png
  • RustRust __BANNED USERS
    Spoit wrote: »
    So what does this bill mean? Does it cave in to companies and make thing worse? Should we scratch it up as a victory that something got passed at all?

    pretty much everything important was watered down on the last two passes, i think

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User
    Yeah, it's a victory, but not a total one. The CFPA is a big win, as is the derivatives part. It's still not tough enough on the banking industry, but given a few good election cycles for progressives, it could be a good foundation for further legislation. Also, a big factor in how effective the CFPA is will be the makeup of the board, as they have some pretty strong powers to create rules.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Registered User regular
    The bailout fund thing didn't make it in did it?

    I was so pissed that, yet again, the dems didn't get out in front of that and get a message out. It was really fucking simple. If these banks want to do dangerous shit, then they have to basically buy Fuck-Up insurance from the federal government to insure that if something does go wrong they've already paid to bail themselves out.

    Instead, they let fucking Pubs get out in front again, and spread "it's another tax-payer bailout. Your tax money will bail out the banks again. Its another win for Wall Street and another instance where Dems are looking down their noses at Main Street." Which they would say one way or the other, but fuck if I'm not tired of D's just sitting and thinking their legislation is going to do the talking for them.

  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Yeah, it's a victory, but not a total one. The CFPA is a big win, as is the derivatives part. It's still not tough enough on the banking industry, but given a few good election cycles for progressives, it could be a good foundation for further legislation. Also, a big factor in how effective the CFPA is will be the makeup of the board, as they have some pretty strong powers to create rules.

    Historically, every bill giving the power to create rules and not putting the desired rules black on white has been a sham. I have a hard time being as positive as you are.

  • TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
    The bailout fund thing didn't make it in did it?

    I was so pissed that, yet again, the dems didn't get out in front of that and get a message out. It was really fucking simple. If these banks want to do dangerous shit, then they have to basically buy Fuck-Up insurance from the federal government to insure that if something does go wrong they've already paid to bail themselves out.

    Instead, they let fucking Pubs get out in front again, and spread "it's another tax-payer bailout. Your tax money will bail out the banks again. Its another win for Wall Street and another instance where Dems are looking down their noses at Main Street." Which they would say one way or the other, but fuck if I'm not tired of D's just sitting and thinking their legislation is going to do the talking for them.

    It's really kind of a shame that they're going to lose the next few Novembers because they overestimate the intelligence and involvement of the voters.

    TARA.gif Click for Steam Profile. WiiU ID: Taramoor
  • RustRust __BANNED USERS
    Taramoor wrote: »
    The bailout fund thing didn't make it in did it?

    I was so pissed that, yet again, the dems didn't get out in front of that and get a message out. It was really fucking simple. If these banks want to do dangerous shit, then they have to basically buy Fuck-Up insurance from the federal government to insure that if something does go wrong they've already paid to bail themselves out.

    Instead, they let fucking Pubs get out in front again, and spread "it's another tax-payer bailout. Your tax money will bail out the banks again. Its another win for Wall Street and another instance where Dems are looking down their noses at Main Street." Which they would say one way or the other, but fuck if I'm not tired of D's just sitting and thinking their legislation is going to do the talking for them.

    It's really kind of a shame that they're going to lose the next few Novembers because they overestimate the intelligence and involvement of the voters.

    or that they just don't give a shit and care more about keeping their jobs (or whatever cushy corporate lobbying jobs they can land afterward) by staying cozy with america's rich

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User
    Rust wrote: »
    Taramoor wrote: »
    The bailout fund thing didn't make it in did it?

    I was so pissed that, yet again, the dems didn't get out in front of that and get a message out. It was really fucking simple. If these banks want to do dangerous shit, then they have to basically buy Fuck-Up insurance from the federal government to insure that if something does go wrong they've already paid to bail themselves out.

    Instead, they let fucking Pubs get out in front again, and spread "it's another tax-payer bailout. Your tax money will bail out the banks again. Its another win for Wall Street and another instance where Dems are looking down their noses at Main Street." Which they would say one way or the other, but fuck if I'm not tired of D's just sitting and thinking their legislation is going to do the talking for them.

    It's really kind of a shame that they're going to lose the next few Novembers because they overestimate the intelligence and involvement of the voters.

    or that they just don't give a shit and care more about keeping their jobs (or whatever cushy corporate lobbying jobs they can land afterward) by staying cozy with america's rich

    Considering how much power the SC has given rich people to influence politics, it'd make sense to not antagonize them too much.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • Afrobot 3000Afrobot 3000 Registered User
    Rust wrote: »
    Taramoor wrote: »
    The bailout fund thing didn't make it in did it?

    I was so pissed that, yet again, the dems didn't get out in front of that and get a message out. It was really fucking simple. If these banks want to do dangerous shit, then they have to basically buy Fuck-Up insurance from the federal government to insure that if something does go wrong they've already paid to bail themselves out.

    Instead, they let fucking Pubs get out in front again, and spread "it's another tax-payer bailout. Your tax money will bail out the banks again. Its another win for Wall Street and another instance where Dems are looking down their noses at Main Street." Which they would say one way or the other, but fuck if I'm not tired of D's just sitting and thinking their legislation is going to do the talking for them.

    It's really kind of a shame that they're going to lose the next few Novembers because they overestimate the intelligence and involvement of the voters.

    or that they just don't give a shit and care more about keeping their jobs (or whatever cushy corporate lobbying jobs they can land afterward) by staying cozy with america's rich

    Both reasons are plausible enough.

    Really McConnell? Really?

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/38271383#38271383

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Taramoor wrote: »
    The bailout fund thing didn't make it in did it?

    I was so pissed that, yet again, the dems didn't get out in front of that and get a message out. It was really fucking simple. If these banks want to do dangerous shit, then they have to basically buy Fuck-Up insurance from the federal government to insure that if something does go wrong they've already paid to bail themselves out.

    Instead, they let fucking Pubs get out in front again, and spread "it's another tax-payer bailout. Your tax money will bail out the banks again. Its another win for Wall Street and another instance where Dems are looking down their noses at Main Street." Which they would say one way or the other, but fuck if I'm not tired of D's just sitting and thinking their legislation is going to do the talking for them.

    It's really kind of a shame that they're going to lose the next few Novembers because they overestimate the intelligence and involvement of the voters.

    They're going to lose this November because no one has any jobs and they caved on the stimulus bill and are now saying things are getting better when they're not. People vote the unemployment rate, every time.

    My cousin made this game: Gem Pop. It's legitimately fun, particularly for people who enjoy Bejewled, Dr. Mario, Tetris, etc. kinds of games. Only two bucks! If you try it out, PM me with what you think of it.
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Yeah, it's a victory, but not a total one. The CFPA is a big win, as is the derivatives part. It's still not tough enough on the banking industry, but given a few good election cycles for progressives, it could be a good foundation for further legislation. Also, a big factor in how effective the CFPA is will be the makeup of the board, as they have some pretty strong powers to create rules.

    how does the CFPA appoint it's board under this bill?

    SC2 : nexuscrawler.381
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User
    Not sure, I assume it'll be similar to the way the FCC works.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Obama at least gets to appoint the chair and the conventional wisdom for the pick is Elizabeth Warren.

    My cousin made this game: Gem Pop. It's legitimately fun, particularly for people who enjoy Bejewled, Dr. Mario, Tetris, etc. kinds of games. Only two bucks! If you try it out, PM me with what you think of it.
  • YougottawannaYougottawanna Registered User regular
    Apparently fucking Geithner is gunning for that job. I am so sick of him.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Via a report that is best anyone can tell is complete bullshit in HuffPo. HuffPo is retarded, don't listen to it.

    On the record, Treasury supports Warren.

    My cousin made this game: Gem Pop. It's legitimately fun, particularly for people who enjoy Bejewled, Dr. Mario, Tetris, etc. kinds of games. Only two bucks! If you try it out, PM me with what you think of it.
  • RustRust __BANNED USERS
    Via a report that is best anyone can tell is complete bullshit in HuffPo. HuffPo is retarded, don't listen to it.

    On the record, Treasury supports Warren.

    i also heard that ben nelson brokered a deal with the executive to have geithner bump off warren in favor of one of washington's many, many corporate stooges

    we'll see what happens, i guess

    hope is futile, death is certain

  • TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
    Rust wrote: »
    Via a report that is best anyone can tell is complete bullshit in HuffPo. HuffPo is retarded, don't listen to it.

    On the record, Treasury supports Warren.

    i also heard that ben nelson brokered a deal with the executive to have geithner bump off warren in favor of one of washington's many, many corporate stooges

    we'll see what happens, i guess

    hope is futile, death is certain

    Was this deal orchestrated by the Queen, the Vatican, The Rothchilds, and Colonel Sanders (before he went tits up)?

    TARA.gif Click for Steam Profile. WiiU ID: Taramoor
  • RustRust __BANNED USERS
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Rust wrote: »
    Via a report that is best anyone can tell is complete bullshit in HuffPo. HuffPo is retarded, don't listen to it.

    On the record, Treasury supports Warren.

    i also heard that ben nelson brokered a deal with the executive to have geithner bump off warren in favor of one of washington's many, many corporate stooges

    we'll see what happens, i guess

    hope is futile, death is certain

    Was this deal orchestrated by the Queen, the Vatican, The Rothchilds, and Colonel Sanders (before he went tits up)?

    the evidence is mostly in the timing

    nelson withholds his vote on the bill until he gets veto power over the head of the CFPB, and almost immediately after, along comes Geithner to say that electing Warren to that position would be such a super-bad idea guys i'm not even kidding

    considering what nelson has done to decent legislation in the past, it's not much of a stretch

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Except Geithner didn't say that! At least not according to any reliable reports and again, Treasury is on the record saying that's full of shit and they support Warren.
    "Elizabeth Warren has been a driving force behind the creation of the consumer financial protection bureau, and we have worked very closely with her over the past year and a half to make that idea a reality.

    "Given her strong leadership on consumer protection, Secretary Geithner believes that Elizabeth Warren is exceptionally well qualified to lead the new bureau, and, ultimately, that’s a decision the President will have to make."

    My cousin made this game: Gem Pop. It's legitimately fun, particularly for people who enjoy Bejewled, Dr. Mario, Tetris, etc. kinds of games. Only two bucks! If you try it out, PM me with what you think of it.
  • RustRust __BANNED USERS
    Except Geithner didn't say that! At least not according to any reliable reports and again, Treasury is on the record saying that's full of shit and they support Warren.
    "Elizabeth Warren has been a driving force behind the creation of the consumer financial protection bureau, and we have worked very closely with her over the past year and a half to make that idea a reality.

    "Given her strong leadership on consumer protection, Secretary Geithner believes that Elizabeth Warren is exceptionally well qualified to lead the new bureau, and, ultimately, that’s a decision the President will have to make."

    hey, hoping you're right

    the last thing we need is another jowly white guy with his arms in the finance industry up to the goddamn elbow

  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    Rust wrote: »
    Except Geithner didn't say that! At least not according to any reliable reports and again, Treasury is on the record saying that's full of shit and they support Warren.
    "Elizabeth Warren has been a driving force behind the creation of the consumer financial protection bureau, and we have worked very closely with her over the past year and a half to make that idea a reality.

    "Given her strong leadership on consumer protection, Secretary Geithner believes that Elizabeth Warren is exceptionally well qualified to lead the new bureau, and, ultimately, that’s a decision the President will have to make."

    hey, hoping you're right

    the last thing we need is another jowly white guy with his arms in the finance industry up to the goddamn elbow

    Do you have a better way to disembowel it?

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
Sign In or Register to comment.