Actually we can make it on topic: maybe Obama should push and apply the broken windows theory to wall street regulation. Or just financial regulation in general. Get in there, investigate the fuck out of everything and go for maximum punishment for every violation.
I think that the administration should be rewriting the rules to modernize and clarify them and then enforce them very strictly. The current rules are too poorly drafted to get much muleage out of a major enforcement effort. Unfortunately, we have an SEC chairwoman from an enforcement background who has no idea what rules need to be changed or how to change them. . .
Isn't it up the House and Senate to rewrite rules like you're describing?
edit: Having the chairwoman for the SEC being from law enforcement is a good idea IMO. It means she'll be more than a paper pusher or a lawyer.
I like how we need to enforce existing laws on things like graffiti (seriously?) but when you mention the financial sector it's "well, let's take a look at the laws first..."
There's a nonzero chance that if we enforced all the current laws on the financial sector, we'd automatically put everyone in prison regardless of whether they did anything. At all, including breathing.
Actually we can make it on topic: maybe Obama should push and apply the broken windows theory to wall street regulation. Or just financial regulation in general. Get in there, investigate the fuck out of everything and go for maximum punishment for every violation.
I think that the administration should be rewriting the rules to modernize and clarify them and then enforce them very strictly. The current rules are too poorly drafted to get much muleage out of a major enforcement effort. Unfortunately, we have an SEC chairwoman from an enforcement background who has no idea what rules need to be changed or how to change them. . .
Isn't it up the House and Senate to rewrite rules like you're describing?
edit: Having the chairwoman for the SEC being from law enforcement is a good idea IMO. It means she'll be more than a paper pusher or a lawyer.
Yes and no. Congress writes the laws, but congress has not written a really substantive financial law in decades. Instead now they outline vague ideas and leave it to the SEC to draft regulations to implement them. But the SEC is understaffed severely and most of its staffers are in enforcement, so they don't have the capability to draft effective regulations. It's a major problem. Believe it or not, the main enforcement scheme in place now is actually nongovernmental. ISS (a shareholder advising company) reviews proxy solicitations and certain other corporate actions and recommends how its subscribers should vote, and ISS is so influential that companies are more comcerned with avoiding violating the ISS guidelines than the actual regulations, in part because those regulations are so unclear that the SEC has a hard time demonstrating breaches.
Actually we can make it on topic: maybe Obama should push and apply the broken windows theory to wall street regulation. Or just financial regulation in general. Get in there, investigate the fuck out of everything and go for maximum punishment for every violation.
Remember: It's not socialism when the government gives money to rich people, and it's not a crime when they just steal it.
Actually we can make it on topic: maybe Obama should push and apply the broken windows theory to wall street regulation. Or just financial regulation in general. Get in there, investigate the fuck out of everything and go for maximum punishment for every violation.
I think that the administration should be rewriting the rules to modernize and clarify them and then enforce them very strictly. The current rules are too poorly drafted to get much muleage out of a major enforcement effort. Unfortunately, we have an SEC chairwoman from an enforcement background who has no idea what rules need to be changed or how to change them. . .
Isn't it up the House and Senate to rewrite rules like you're describing?
edit: Having the chairwoman for the SEC being from law enforcement is a good idea IMO. It means she'll be more than a paper pusher or a lawyer.
Yes and no. Congress writes the laws, but congress has not written a really substantive financial law in decades. Instead now they outline vague ideas and leave it to the SEC to draft regulations to implement them. But the SEC is understaffed severely and most of its staffers are in enforcement, so they don't have the capability to draft effective regulations. It's a major problem. Believe it or not, the main enforcement scheme in place now is actually nongovernmental. ISS (a shareholder advising company) reviews proxy solicitations and certain other corporate actions and recommends how its subscribers should vote, and ISS is so influential that companies are more comcerned with avoiding violating the ISS guidelines than the actual regulations, in part because those regulations are so unclear that the SEC has a hard time demonstrating breaches.
Gosh I wonder why that is, because it's certainly not as if hundreds of millions of dollars get spent bribing lobbying to make sure that this state of affairs continues.
There's a nonzero chance that if we enforced all the current laws on the financial sector, we'd automatically put everyone in prison regardless of whether they did anything. At all, including breathing.
There's a nonzero chance that if we enforced all the current laws on the financial sector, we'd automatically put everyone in prison regardless of whether they did anything. At all, including breathing.
Oh well. Can't make an omelette, etc.
Exactly, go after visible targets using the current guidelines to force substantive rewriting of the laws to occur.
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
There's a nonzero chance that if we enforced all the current laws on the financial sector, we'd automatically put everyone in prison regardless of whether they did anything. At all, including breathing.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
+2
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Our current crop of Wall Street denizens are as bad as the ones in the early 1900's.
Our current crop of Wall Street denizens are as bad as the ones in the early 1900's.
More accurately, any crop of high-finance moguls will possess a tendency to making decisions that negatively impact wider society for their own benefit. Therefore their excesses and power need to be prohibited.
+1
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
There's a nonzero chance that if we enforced all the current laws on the financial sector, we'd automatically put everyone in prison regardless of whether they did anything. At all, including breathing.
Oh well. Can't make an omelette, etc.
Exactly, go after visible targets using the current guidelines to force substantive rewriting of the laws to occur.
Its really hard to go after anyone with the current rules. Its a lot of why major SEC enforcement actions happen so rarely. Sarbanes Oxley added some enforcement power, but really only in areas that aren't of huge concern, like regulating loans from companies to executives. Dodd-Frank tried to make a lot of changes, but the statute is so poorly drafted that the SEC had largely been left to scratch its head over how to implement most of it.
I like how we need to enforce existing laws on things like graffiti (seriously?) but when you mention the financial sector it's "well, let's take a look at the laws first..."
It gets even better when you consider his love of how the military punishes adultery.
And his firm belief that water-boarding should be legal.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I like how we need to enforce existing laws on things like graffiti (seriously?) but when you mention the financial sector it's "well, let's take a look at the laws first..."
It gets even better when you consider his love of how the military punishes adultery.
And his firm belief that water-boarding should be legal.
Did I ever say that?
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
I like how we need to enforce existing laws on things like graffiti (seriously?) but when you mention the financial sector it's "well, let's take a look at the laws first..."
That's because the problem isn't that the law isn't being enforced, it's that the law hasn't kept pace with the horrible "innovations" from the financial sector.
"HANG ALL THE BANKERS" may be a popular sentiment, but you're very uninformed if you think
I think that the administration should be rewriting the rules to modernize and clarify them and then enforce them very strictly. The current rules are too poorly drafted to get much muleage out of a major enforcement effort. Unfortunately, we have an SEC chairwoman from an enforcement background who has no idea what rules need to be changed or how to change them. . .
can be summed up as "well, let's take a look at the laws first..."
The shit they're you're angry about is bafflingly legal, dawg.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
There's a nonzero chance that if we enforced all the current laws on the financial sector, we'd automatically put everyone in prison regardless of whether they did anything. At all, including breathing.
Oh well. Can't make an omelette, etc.
Exactly, go after visible targets using the current guidelines to force substantive rewriting of the laws to occur.
Its really hard to go after anyone with the current rules. Its a lot of why major SEC enforcement actions happen so rarely. Sarbanes Oxley added some enforcement power, but really only in areas that aren't of huge concern, like regulating loans from companies to executives. Dodd-Frank tried to make a lot of changes, but the statute is so poorly drafted that the SEC had largely been left to scratch its head over how to implement most of it.
This is just a guess but I'd assume the poorly drafted part had less to do with Washington's inabilities and more to do with Wall Streets financial influence.
Placate the masses and make em think somethings being done about the horribly unpopular and economically destructive assholes at Wall Street but make the law an indecipherable mess so nothing actually upsets our betters up in the financial sector.
Fuck crime, drugs, racism, education, and every other thing in this country. The true threat is banks.
Actually we can make it on topic: maybe Obama should push and apply the broken windows theory to wall street regulation. Or just financial regulation in general. Get in there, investigate the fuck out of everything and go for maximum punishment for every violation.
I think that the administration should be rewriting the rules to modernize and clarify them and then enforce them very strictly. The current rules are too poorly drafted to get much muleage out of a major enforcement effort. Unfortunately, we have an SEC chairwoman from an enforcement background who has no idea what rules need to be changed or how to change them. . .
Isn't it up the House and Senate to rewrite rules like you're describing?
edit: Having the chairwoman for the SEC being from law enforcement is a good idea IMO. It means she'll be more than a paper pusher or a lawyer.
Yes and no. Congress writes the laws, but congress has not written a really substantive financial law in decades. Instead now they outline vague ideas and leave it to the SEC to draft regulations to implement them. But the SEC is understaffed severely and most of its staffers are in enforcement, so they don't have the capability to draft effective regulations. It's a major problem. Believe it or not, the main enforcement scheme in place now is actually nongovernmental. ISS (a shareholder advising company) reviews proxy solicitations and certain other corporate actions and recommends how its subscribers should vote, and ISS is so influential that companies are more comcerned with avoiding violating the ISS guidelines than the actual regulations, in part because those regulations are so unclear that the SEC has a hard time demonstrating breaches.
Since you're in the biz, how concerned ARE companies with following ISS policies? I know they have pretty good policies, from a corporate governance perspective, but I am curious as to just how much companies structure around things. I read a study (by study I mean abstract) that states executive compensation plans are homogenizing in order to increase chances of making a Say on Pay vote, but other than that, not much.
To be fair, most of what I'm aware of is "problem" companies, who ignore shareholder votes or just have generally terrible comp plans, etc.
I like how we need to enforce existing laws on things like graffiti (seriously?) but when you mention the financial sector it's "well, let's take a look at the laws first..."
That's because the problem isn't that the law isn't being enforced, it's that the law hasn't kept pace with the horrible "innovations" from the financial sector.
"HANG ALL THE BANKERS" may be a popular sentiment, but you're very uninformed if you think
I think that the administration should be rewriting the rules to modernize and clarify them and then enforce them very strictly. The current rules are too poorly drafted to get much muleage out of a major enforcement effort. Unfortunately, we have an SEC chairwoman from an enforcement background who has no idea what rules need to be changed or how to change them. . .
can be summed up as "well, let's take a look at the laws first..."
The shit they're you're angry about is bafflingly legal, dawg.
The idea that SKFM's home turf is the only place to find laws in serious need of revision is ridiculous. Now, if you put it that way to SKFM, or anyone, I doubt they'd object; but that is the implication of that pair of posts.
Keep in mind that these statements were made in a discussion about "broken window" law enforcement. Are you seriously telling me that there isn't even a "broken window" level law that financial institutions/professionals can be charged with violating? Given that things like this and this, have happened I'm inclined to believe that there are (I would not classify either of those cases as "broken window" level offenses, to be clear).
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Actually we can make it on topic: maybe Obama should push and apply the broken windows theory to wall street regulation. Or just financial regulation in general. Get in there, investigate the fuck out of everything and go for maximum punishment for every violation.
I think that the administration should be rewriting the rules to modernize and clarify them and then enforce them very strictly. The current rules are too poorly drafted to get much muleage out of a major enforcement effort. Unfortunately, we have an SEC chairwoman from an enforcement background who has no idea what rules need to be changed or how to change them. . .
Isn't it up the House and Senate to rewrite rules like you're describing?
edit: Having the chairwoman for the SEC being from law enforcement is a good idea IMO. It means she'll be more than a paper pusher or a lawyer.
Yes and no. Congress writes the laws, but congress has not written a really substantive financial law in decades. Instead now they outline vague ideas and leave it to the SEC to draft regulations to implement them. But the SEC is understaffed severely and most of its staffers are in enforcement, so they don't have the capability to draft effective regulations. It's a major problem. Believe it or not, the main enforcement scheme in place now is actually nongovernmental. ISS (a shareholder advising company) reviews proxy solicitations and certain other corporate actions and recommends how its subscribers should vote, and ISS is so influential that companies are more comcerned with avoiding violating the ISS guidelines than the actual regulations, in part because those regulations are so unclear that the SEC has a hard time demonstrating breaches.
Since you're in the biz, how concerned ARE companies with following ISS policies? I know they have pretty good policies, from a corporate governance perspective, but I am curious as to just how much companies structure around things. I read a study (by study I mean abstract) that states executive compensation plans are homogenizing in order to increase chances of making a Say on Pay vote, but other than that, not much.
To be fair, most of what I'm aware of is "problem" companies, who ignore shareholder votes or just have generally terrible comp plans, etc.
It really depends on your shareholder base. Companies that don't have many large institutional shareholders care much less, but for any company with a lot of institutional shareholders ISS guidelines might as well be exchange listing requirements or SEC regulations. They are extremely influential, and basically no one just thumbs their nose at the requirements. I suppose that in theory you could create a proposal that gamed the system, but the algorithms that ISS uses are not disclosed (not even to subscribers) and there is no good way to guess at them with any degree of accuracy.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I like how we need to enforce existing laws on things like graffiti (seriously?) but when you mention the financial sector it's "well, let's take a look at the laws first..."
That's because the problem isn't that the law isn't being enforced, it's that the law hasn't kept pace with the horrible "innovations" from the financial sector.
"HANG ALL THE BANKERS" may be a popular sentiment, but you're very uninformed if you think
I think that the administration should be rewriting the rules to modernize and clarify them and then enforce them very strictly. The current rules are too poorly drafted to get much muleage out of a major enforcement effort. Unfortunately, we have an SEC chairwoman from an enforcement background who has no idea what rules need to be changed or how to change them. . .
can be summed up as "well, let's take a look at the laws first..."
The shit they're you're angry about is bafflingly legal, dawg.
The idea that SKFM's home turf is the only place to find laws in serious need of revision is ridiculous. Now, if you put it that way to SKFM, or anyone, I doubt they'd object; but that is the implication of that pair of posts.
Keep in mind that these statements were made in a discussion about "broken window" law enforcement. Are you seriously telling me that there isn't even a "broken window" level law that financial institutions/professionals can be charged with violating? Given that things like this and this, have happened I'm inclined to believe that there are (I would not classify either of those cases as "broken window" level offenses, to be clear).
The reason the SEC settles so often and for so much less than it could get under statute is that it loses a lot in the courts, and so the SEC would generally prefer to extract some concessions under a vague law than to have a court construe that law against the SEC. With better laws and regulations maybe the SEC could win more and thereby enforce rules more easily.
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Are you seriously telling me that there isn't even a "broken window" level law that financial institutions/professionals can be charged with violating? Given that things like this and this, have happened I'm inclined to believe that there are (I would not classify either of those cases as "broken window" level offenses, to be clear).
Which law would you like to see more vigorously enforced?
Then put Glass-Steagall back in place like Senator Warren keeps saying.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+1
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
umm Hey guys.
So I heard the President gave a speech the other day! Something about Race or some such? How did that compare to his Philly speech while he was campaigning?
Any other news or appointments or anything coming from the Oval Office?
I posted it over in the Trayvon Martin thread, it's good. It's more explicitly from a black perspective than pretty much anything he's said since he came into the public eye, which is interesting.
So I heard the President gave a speech the other day! Something about Race or some such? How did that compare to his Philly speech while he was campaigning?
Any other news or appointments or anything coming from the Oval Office?
The president stressed the importance of reasonable doubt and the rule of law, called upon people to accept the jury's verdict, and expressed sympathy for Mr. Martin's family. The response from his political opponents was as calm and mature as one would expect.
Warning: the preceding post may be more sarcastic than it appears. Proceed at own risk. Individual results may vary. Offers not valid in Canada or where prohibited by fraud statutes.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I posted it over in the Trayvon Martin thread, it's good. It's more explicitly from a black perspective than pretty much anything he's said since he came into the public eye, which is interesting.
I don't know. I think that these types of comments may increase the amount of protests we see, which I regard as a bad thing. I also don't think that the president should be speaking from the "black perspective." It's needlessly divisive, and in this case, it takes a case that was really about the specific situation and makes it seem like part of the lack experience, which I think is both innaccurate (it is not analogous to being followed in a store) and which tends to make the verdict and the system seem less legitimate, despite his earlier remarks on the process.
I posted it over in the Trayvon Martin thread, it's good. It's more explicitly from a black perspective than pretty much anything he's said since he came into the public eye, which is interesting.
I don't know. I think that these types of comments may increase the amount of protests we see, which I regard as a bad thing. I also don't think that the president should be speaking from the "black perspective." It's needlessly divisive, and in this case, it takes a case that was really about the specific situation and makes it seem like part of the lack experience, which I think is both innaccurate (it is not analogous to being followed in a store) and which tends to make the verdict and the system seem less legitimate, despite his earlier remarks on the process.
See if he isn't speaking from the "black perspective" he's speaking from the default right? What's the default skfm?
Also fuck the idea that a 17 minute speech about the black perspective out of an 5-year Presidency is somehow ridiculous.
(not aimed at you specifically )
I posted it over in the Trayvon Martin thread, it's good. It's more explicitly from a black perspective than pretty much anything he's said since he came into the public eye, which is interesting.
I don't know. I think that these types of comments may increase the amount of protests we see, which I regard as a bad thing. I also don't think that the president should be speaking from the "black perspective." It's needlessly divisive, and in this case, it takes a case that was really about the specific situation and makes it seem like part of the lack experience, which I think is both innaccurate (it is not analogous to being followed in a store) and which tends to make the verdict and the system seem less legitimate, despite his earlier remarks on the process.
I don't regard protests as a bad thing.
I also don't think that running the numbers on each case and delivering a verdict on whether being black was enough of a proximate cause for people to feel something is kind of a fucking farce.
So I heard the President gave a speech the other day! Something about Race or some such? How did that compare to his Philly speech while he was campaigning?
Any other news or appointments or anything coming from the Oval Office?
The president stressed the importance of reasonable doubt and the rule of law, called upon people to accept the jury's verdict, and expressed sympathy for Mr. Martin's family. The response from his political opponents was as calm and mature as one would expect.
Ah. This must have been what my father meant when he called me over the weekend gloating about how Obama showed his true racist colors. I pointed out the irony of him calling the President a racist when he has never actually used the Presidents name, but just follows the title of his office with a racial slur. I believe it was lost on him however.
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
I pointed out the irony of him calling the President a racist when he has never actually used the Presidents name, but just follows the title of his office...
There's nothing racist about that. It's totally fine to add...
...with a racial slur.
Oh...yeah...umm...
Deebaser on
+4
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I posted it over in the Trayvon Martin thread, it's good. It's more explicitly from a black perspective than pretty much anything he's said since he came into the public eye, which is interesting.
I don't know. I think that these types of comments may increase the amount of protests we see, which I regard as a bad thing. I also don't think that the president should be speaking from the "black perspective." It's needlessly divisive, and in this case, it takes a case that was really about the specific situation and makes it seem like part of the lack experience, which I think is both innaccurate (it is not analogous to being followed in a store) and which tends to make the verdict and the system seem less legitimate, despite his earlier remarks on the process.
See if he isn't speaking from the "black perspective" he's speaking from the default right? What's the default skfm?
Also fuck the idea that a 17 minute speech about the black perspective out of an 5-year Presidency is somehow ridiculous.
(not aimed at you specifically )
The default is the perspective that doesn't involve him saying "as a black man. . ."
Also, why should the president of the united states be commenting on a state criminal case that hasn't even been appealed. That is unusual, if not unprecedented.
I posted it over in the Trayvon Martin thread, it's good. It's more explicitly from a black perspective than pretty much anything he's said since he came into the public eye, which is interesting.
I don't know. I think that these types of comments may increase the amount of protests we see, which I regard as a bad thing. I also don't think that the president should be speaking from the "black perspective." It's needlessly divisive, and in this case, it takes a case that was really about the specific situation and makes it seem like part of the lack experience, which I think is both innaccurate (it is not analogous to being followed in a store) and which tends to make the verdict and the system seem less legitimate, despite his earlier remarks on the process.
I don't regard protests as a bad thing.
I also don't think that running the numbers on each case and delivering a verdict on whether being black was enough of a proximate cause for people to feel something is kind of a fucking farce.
When you are the president of the United States of America, the stability of America is pretty important. Protests are destabilizing.
I don't understand what you mean with this second sentence.
I'm ambivalent that Obama's speech will increase or decrease the number of protests about the Zimmerman trial.
But, I really have no concern about the protests themselves. Protesting is a good thing. Hell, it's protected by the Constitution. Encourage, discourage, whatever.
What I do see Obama's comments doing is relate to the people that 'the man' or 'the government' is not some monolithic racist enemy of the black people. It's made up of people who understand and share many of their concerns, and can relate to the issues and helplessness they feel. If the man at the top doesn't just pay lip service, but actually has felt that helplessness and profiling firsthand, it can diffuse a lot of the anger that could turn a political message into violence. Knowing that the leader of the free world is angry provides some catharsis and release.
But hey, no matter what he does, people are going to sit on the side and take pot-shots. If Obama is quiet, he's not showing leadership. If he speaks, he's going to be called being divisive or race baiting. If he makes a simple statement, he's being cold or playing politics. I'm sure he knows that if one black guy throws a rock or fights with a cop in the next month or two, it's going to be on Fox News 'Obama's statements encourage race riots'. So fuck those people, he's doing what he should be doing as President.
I posted it over in the Trayvon Martin thread, it's good. It's more explicitly from a black perspective than pretty much anything he's said since he came into the public eye, which is interesting.
I don't know. I think that these types of comments may increase the amount of protests we see, which I regard as a bad thing. I also don't think that the president should be speaking from the "black perspective." It's needlessly divisive, and in this case, it takes a case that was really about the specific situation and makes it seem like part of the lack experience, which I think is both innaccurate (it is not analogous to being followed in a store) and which tends to make the verdict and the system seem less legitimate, despite his earlier remarks on the process.
See if he isn't speaking from the "black perspective" he's speaking from the default right? What's the default skfm?
Also fuck the idea that a 17 minute speech about the black perspective out of an 5-year Presidency is somehow ridiculous.
(not aimed at you specifically )
The default is the perspective that doesn't involve him saying "as a black man. . ."
Also, why should the president of the united states be commenting on a state criminal case that hasn't even been appealed. That is unusual, if not unprecedented.
The prosecution appealing a jury finding of not guilty would be unprecedented.
I posted it over in the Trayvon Martin thread, it's good. It's more explicitly from a black perspective than pretty much anything he's said since he came into the public eye, which is interesting.
I don't know. I think that these types of comments may increase the amount of protests we see, which I regard as a bad thing. I also don't think that the president should be speaking from the "black perspective." It's needlessly divisive, and in this case, it takes a case that was really about the specific situation and makes it seem like part of the lack experience, which I think is both innaccurate (it is not analogous to being followed in a store) and which tends to make the verdict and the system seem less legitimate, despite his earlier remarks on the process.
See if he isn't speaking from the "black perspective" he's speaking from the default right? What's the default skfm?
Also fuck the idea that a 17 minute speech about the black perspective out of an 5-year Presidency is somehow ridiculous.
(not aimed at you specifically )
The default is the perspective that doesn't involve him saying "as a black man. . ."
Also, why should the president of the united states be commenting on a state criminal case that hasn't even been appealed. That is unusual, if not unprecedented.
I posted it over in the Trayvon Martin thread, it's good. It's more explicitly from a black perspective than pretty much anything he's said since he came into the public eye, which is interesting.
I don't know. I think that these types of comments may increase the amount of protests we see, which I regard as a bad thing. I also don't think that the president should be speaking from the "black perspective." It's needlessly divisive, and in this case, it takes a case that was really about the specific situation and makes it seem like part of the lack experience, which I think is both innaccurate (it is not analogous to being followed in a store) and which tends to make the verdict and the system seem less legitimate, despite his earlier remarks on the process.
I don't regard protests as a bad thing.
I also don't think that running the numbers on each case and delivering a verdict on whether being black was enough of a proximate cause for people to feel something is kind of a fucking farce.
When you are the president of the United States of America, the stability of America is pretty important. Protests are destabilizing.
I don't understand what you mean with this second sentence.
Protests are destabilizing?
How about the bullshit that usually causes the protests.
I also love how its ok for politicians to really relate to people on "small town" issues, through "cultural connections" and "shared values", and even identify what religion they share with people!
But bring up race, at all, and this is the response. "Do the default position." In other words, Christian White People.
Your comment is seriously sickening. Black people, less people his age but not a whole lot less, went through a set of shared experiences that you or me cannot possibly fathom because it requires systematic and social othering, sometimes violent and deadly and other times cold.
Its still happening. Right now.
You have the Stephen Colbert version of non-racism in that sentence up there. "I don't see black, or brown, or yellow. To me, everyone's white."
Okay, you box of homps, I just literally had to recheck the title of the thread I was in because I thought I had accidentally stumbled into something other than the Obama thread.
There is about a 50/50 chance right now that I'm going to lock this thread due to uncertainty as to whether a general-purpose Obama administration thread provides the forum with something useful. (Note: "chat thread revolving around politics" is not "something useful".) That percentage chance might go up or down before the day is out.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Right now, there is a 0% chance the thread will stay open. Every good, on-topic post I see in here before I go sleepy-sleep adds 2% to that chance. Posts for the sake of posts add 0%. Off-topic posts subtract 10%.
At the end of the day, I will tally up the percentage chance and have Geth roll a die to see if the thread dies tonight. If it gets locked, no new Obama thread for six months.
Editing an off-topic post into an on-topic post will only make me grumpy, and I can see post edit histories, so don't play sneaky.
And...
Go.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Obama is going all, "the economy, stupid" on alllll our asses. 'Repackaging' his former proposals seems like a waste IMO, but maybe saying something, anything would make Boehner realize the errors of his ways. Or at the very least put forth some token stuff to make it look like he has any ideas other than no ideas.
I'm curious what role people criticizing Obama's comments on Friday think that the administration should have when commenting on high profile and divisive issues that are at the forefront of our current national conversation. I don't think that Obama would be in the wrong or have mishandled the issue if he'd simply left this at the 'jury has spoken' phase without further comment, but I also don't think it's wrong of him to continue this discussion in an attempt to open up dialogue or at least help prevent a large minority of America from feeling disenfranchised from this issue.
Personally, I feel that issues like this are exactly why we have a President and he plays the role in national dialogue that he does. Directing Holder to investiage if there were any Civil Rights violations is also part of his job to represent the interests of the American people as a whole.
The wharblegharble on the right makes it sound like Obama stood up on Friday and gave a Malcolm X 'kick the legs out from the table' speech, which clearly shows that they are going to hear what they are going to hear regardless of what he says or what role he plays so - personally - I want him to say 'fuck those guys, I was elected to do my job'.
Posts
Isn't it up the House and Senate to rewrite rules like you're describing?
edit: Having the chairwoman for the SEC being from law enforcement is a good idea IMO. It means she'll be more than a paper pusher or a lawyer.
Yes and no. Congress writes the laws, but congress has not written a really substantive financial law in decades. Instead now they outline vague ideas and leave it to the SEC to draft regulations to implement them. But the SEC is understaffed severely and most of its staffers are in enforcement, so they don't have the capability to draft effective regulations. It's a major problem. Believe it or not, the main enforcement scheme in place now is actually nongovernmental. ISS (a shareholder advising company) reviews proxy solicitations and certain other corporate actions and recommends how its subscribers should vote, and ISS is so influential that companies are more comcerned with avoiding violating the ISS guidelines than the actual regulations, in part because those regulations are so unclear that the SEC has a hard time demonstrating breaches.
Remember: It's not socialism when the government gives money to rich people, and it's not a crime when they just steal it.
Gosh I wonder why that is, because it's certainly not as if hundreds of millions of dollars get spent bribing lobbying to make sure that this state of affairs continues.
Oh well. Can't make an omelette, etc.
Exactly, go after visible targets using the current guidelines to force substantive rewriting of the laws to occur.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
More accurately, any crop of high-finance moguls will possess a tendency to making decisions that negatively impact wider society for their own benefit. Therefore their excesses and power need to be prohibited.
Its really hard to go after anyone with the current rules. Its a lot of why major SEC enforcement actions happen so rarely. Sarbanes Oxley added some enforcement power, but really only in areas that aren't of huge concern, like regulating loans from companies to executives. Dodd-Frank tried to make a lot of changes, but the statute is so poorly drafted that the SEC had largely been left to scratch its head over how to implement most of it.
It gets even better when you consider his love of how the military punishes adultery.
And his firm belief that water-boarding should be legal.
Did I ever say that?
That's because the problem isn't that the law isn't being enforced, it's that the law hasn't kept pace with the horrible "innovations" from the financial sector.
"HANG ALL THE BANKERS" may be a popular sentiment, but you're very uninformed if you think
can be summed up as "well, let's take a look at the laws first..."
The shit they're you're angry about is bafflingly legal, dawg.
This is just a guess but I'd assume the poorly drafted part had less to do with Washington's inabilities and more to do with Wall Streets financial influence.
Placate the masses and make em think somethings being done about the horribly unpopular and economically destructive assholes at Wall Street but make the law an indecipherable mess so nothing actually upsets our betters up in the financial sector.
Fuck crime, drugs, racism, education, and every other thing in this country. The true threat is banks.
Since you're in the biz, how concerned ARE companies with following ISS policies? I know they have pretty good policies, from a corporate governance perspective, but I am curious as to just how much companies structure around things. I read a study (by study I mean abstract) that states executive compensation plans are homogenizing in order to increase chances of making a Say on Pay vote, but other than that, not much.
To be fair, most of what I'm aware of is "problem" companies, who ignore shareholder votes or just have generally terrible comp plans, etc.
Keep in mind that these statements were made in a discussion about "broken window" law enforcement. Are you seriously telling me that there isn't even a "broken window" level law that financial institutions/professionals can be charged with violating? Given that things like this and this, have happened I'm inclined to believe that there are (I would not classify either of those cases as "broken window" level offenses, to be clear).
It really depends on your shareholder base. Companies that don't have many large institutional shareholders care much less, but for any company with a lot of institutional shareholders ISS guidelines might as well be exchange listing requirements or SEC regulations. They are extremely influential, and basically no one just thumbs their nose at the requirements. I suppose that in theory you could create a proposal that gamed the system, but the algorithms that ISS uses are not disclosed (not even to subscribers) and there is no good way to guess at them with any degree of accuracy.
The reason the SEC settles so often and for so much less than it could get under statute is that it loses a lot in the courts, and so the SEC would generally prefer to extract some concessions under a vague law than to have a court construe that law against the SEC. With better laws and regulations maybe the SEC could win more and thereby enforce rules more easily.
Which law would you like to see more vigorously enforced?
Then put Glass-Steagall back in place like Senator Warren keeps saying.
So I heard the President gave a speech the other day! Something about Race or some such? How did that compare to his Philly speech while he was campaigning?
Any other news or appointments or anything coming from the Oval Office?
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Here.
The president stressed the importance of reasonable doubt and the rule of law, called upon people to accept the jury's verdict, and expressed sympathy for Mr. Martin's family. The response from his political opponents was as calm and mature as one would expect.
I don't know. I think that these types of comments may increase the amount of protests we see, which I regard as a bad thing. I also don't think that the president should be speaking from the "black perspective." It's needlessly divisive, and in this case, it takes a case that was really about the specific situation and makes it seem like part of the lack experience, which I think is both innaccurate (it is not analogous to being followed in a store) and which tends to make the verdict and the system seem less legitimate, despite his earlier remarks on the process.
See if he isn't speaking from the "black perspective" he's speaking from the default right? What's the default skfm?
Also fuck the idea that a 17 minute speech about the black perspective out of an 5-year Presidency is somehow ridiculous.
(not aimed at you specifically
I don't regard protests as a bad thing.
I also don't think that running the numbers on each case and delivering a verdict on whether being black was enough of a proximate cause for people to feel something is kind of a fucking farce.
Ah. This must have been what my father meant when he called me over the weekend gloating about how Obama showed his true racist colors. I pointed out the irony of him calling the President a racist when he has never actually used the Presidents name, but just follows the title of his office with a racial slur. I believe it was lost on him however.
There's nothing racist about that. It's totally fine to add...
Oh...yeah...umm...
The default is the perspective that doesn't involve him saying "as a black man. . ."
Also, why should the president of the united states be commenting on a state criminal case that hasn't even been appealed. That is unusual, if not unprecedented.
When you are the president of the United States of America, the stability of America is pretty important. Protests are destabilizing.
I don't understand what you mean with this second sentence.
But, I really have no concern about the protests themselves. Protesting is a good thing. Hell, it's protected by the Constitution. Encourage, discourage, whatever.
What I do see Obama's comments doing is relate to the people that 'the man' or 'the government' is not some monolithic racist enemy of the black people. It's made up of people who understand and share many of their concerns, and can relate to the issues and helplessness they feel. If the man at the top doesn't just pay lip service, but actually has felt that helplessness and profiling firsthand, it can diffuse a lot of the anger that could turn a political message into violence. Knowing that the leader of the free world is angry provides some catharsis and release.
But hey, no matter what he does, people are going to sit on the side and take pot-shots. If Obama is quiet, he's not showing leadership. If he speaks, he's going to be called being divisive or race baiting. If he makes a simple statement, he's being cold or playing politics. I'm sure he knows that if one black guy throws a rock or fights with a cop in the next month or two, it's going to be on Fox News 'Obama's statements encourage race riots'. So fuck those people, he's doing what he should be doing as President.
The prosecution appealing a jury finding of not guilty would be unprecedented.
Protests are destabilizing?
How about the bullshit that usually causes the protests.
I also love how its ok for politicians to really relate to people on "small town" issues, through "cultural connections" and "shared values", and even identify what religion they share with people!
But bring up race, at all, and this is the response. "Do the default position." In other words, Christian White People.
Your comment is seriously sickening. Black people, less people his age but not a whole lot less, went through a set of shared experiences that you or me cannot possibly fathom because it requires systematic and social othering, sometimes violent and deadly and other times cold.
Its still happening. Right now.
You have the Stephen Colbert version of non-racism in that sentence up there. "I don't see black, or brown, or yellow. To me, everyone's white."
There is about a 50/50 chance right now that I'm going to lock this thread due to uncertainty as to whether a general-purpose Obama administration thread provides the forum with something useful. (Note: "chat thread revolving around politics" is not "something useful".) That percentage chance might go up or down before the day is out.
Right now, there is a 0% chance the thread will stay open. Every good, on-topic post I see in here before I go sleepy-sleep adds 2% to that chance. Posts for the sake of posts add 0%. Off-topic posts subtract 10%.
At the end of the day, I will tally up the percentage chance and have Geth roll a die to see if the thread dies tonight. If it gets locked, no new Obama thread for six months.
Editing an off-topic post into an on-topic post will only make me grumpy, and I can see post edit histories, so don't play sneaky.
And...
Go.
Obama is going all, "the economy, stupid" on alllll our asses. 'Repackaging' his former proposals seems like a waste IMO, but maybe saying something, anything would make Boehner realize the errors of his ways. Or at the very least put forth some token stuff to make it look like he has any ideas other than no ideas.
Personally, I feel that issues like this are exactly why we have a President and he plays the role in national dialogue that he does. Directing Holder to investiage if there were any Civil Rights violations is also part of his job to represent the interests of the American people as a whole.
The wharblegharble on the right makes it sound like Obama stood up on Friday and gave a Malcolm X 'kick the legs out from the table' speech, which clearly shows that they are going to hear what they are going to hear regardless of what he says or what role he plays so - personally - I want him to say 'fuck those guys, I was elected to do my job'.