Conquer Club

Who's with me?! WHO'S BLOODY WITH ME?!

We need to start a movement that focuses on regulating Wall Street. We need to focus on stiffer penalties for corruption both for bribing politicians and for politicians who get bribed. We need to crack down on the banks buying power in Washington D.C. and and also politicians who sell the power. The little people continue to be trampled on and we lose more rights and freedoms everyday it seems while the bankers and lobbyists and politicians continue to get away with making millions of dollars selling and serving special interests (a billion in one instance, but we don't need to name names)

Lets get it started.

Y'all jiggas postin' in a trap thread

Um, most of what you're saying focuses on Washington DC, not Wall Street.

But if you want to limit corruption and fraud on Wall Street, it's really simple, actually, and some things older generations had in place that involve little government oversight.

• Re-enact Glass-Steagall, so that S&Ls are kept separate from investment firms. Enforce some anti-trust to break up the banks already combined.
  
  
  
• Disallow investment banks to be publicly traded (sorry Ronnie Raygun! Your legacy is a steaming pile of shit!). When the firms are comprised of people investing their own money, rather than some mark they found to defraud, you won't see over-leveraged CDS and CDO bullshit like during the Bush Bubble.

pimpdave wrote:Um, most of what you're saying focuses on Washington DC, not Wall Street.

But if you want to limit corruption and fraud on Wall Street, it's really simple, actually, and some things older generations had in place that involve little government oversight.

[list][*]Re-enact Glass-Steagall, so that S&Ls are kept separate from investment firms. Enforce some anti-trust to break up the banks already combined.

Wall Street does not write special laws, D.C. does. Wall Street just buys the people to write the laws for them. Most of what I said focuses on both sides of the equation, equally. We can't deal with this by blaming one side more than the other, we need to focus on both.

Re-enacting Glass-Stegal is a great start.

Im in a Scotty thread, agreeing with him.

WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO!?!?!

Lootifer wrote:Im in a Scotty thread, agreeing with him.

WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO!?!?!

we've always agreed on this, it's just that political assumptions keep getting in the way.

pimpdave wrote:Um, most of what you're saying focuses on Washington DC, not Wall Street.

But if you want to limit corruption and fraud on Wall Street, it's really simple, actually, and some things older generations had in place that involve little government oversight.

• Re-enact Glass-Steagall, so that S&Ls are kept separate from investment firms. Enforce some anti-trust to break up the banks already combined.
  
  
  
• Disallow investment banks to be publicly traded (sorry Ronnie Raygun! Your legacy is a steaming pile of shit!). When the firms are comprised of people investing their own money, rather than some mark they found to defraud, you won't see over-leveraged CDS and CDO bullshit like during the Bush Bubble.

The measures you point out won't happen to the extent that PhatScotty's "regulations" don't happen first.

How do you propose to entice those who write the laws
and profit from the current system to alter anything?

The term "campaign reform" has been bandied about
for years and never been acted on.

The only people smart enough to actually fix the problem
and make this "democracy" function properly are also
smart enough not to get bogged down in this muck.

oVo wrote:How do you propose to entice those who write the laws
and profit from the current system to alter anything?

I've been thinking about the Empire status of the US, and how people will view this country 100 years from now.

They might be on an internet forum asking, "why did so many of those Americans just bend over and take it?"

Then someone rudely interjected with "cuz they're a bunch of faggots!"

To which someone responded, "REPORTED!"

And another ignored the above and posted a 6 paragraph post about how it was in most Americans best perceived self-interest to do nothing about it--just like most German citizens during WW2.

"GODWIN'S LAW."

Then was something about MLP, racism, and how the US didn't need the Soviet Union to win WW2.


But I digress. What we were talking about?

oVo wrote:How do you propose to entice those who write the laws
and profit from the current system to alter anything?

The term "campaign reform" has been bandied about
for years and never been acted on.

The only people smart enough to actually fix the problem
and make this "democracy" function properly are also
smart enough not to get bogged down in this muck.

I just said that exact same thing!

Campaign finance reform won't happen because the people that would reform it directly benefit from it. Thus, we need OWS protestors to focus on that issue rather than on whether Wall Street has greedy people, while sipping latte from a Starbucks cup, checking the latest iTunes on the iPhone, driving a BMW.

Oh, TGD, get serious.


But seriously, someone needs to compile an easy-to-read book which identifies the main problems, explains why, and explains how the status quo will be resistant toward such reform--unless enough people demand it.

Basically, they need to be armed with the "right" ideas. People's concepts of liberty, capitalism, and government have been distorted.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Oh, TGD, get serious.


But seriously, someone needs to compile an easy-to-read book which identifies the main problems, explains why, and explains how the status quo will be resistant toward such reform--unless enough people demand it.

Basically, they need to be armed with the "right" ideas. People's concepts of liberty, capitalism, and government have been distorted.

I honestly believe that, no matter what political persuasion, the vast majority of, if not all, Americans will support substantive campaign finance reform to the extent they understand how campaign finance and lobbying directly affects law in the United States.

I wanted to vote "Regurgitate Wall Street," but alas, it was not an option.


--Andy

I have no problem with the wealthy 1% until they use their resources
to buy influence with the law makers. Maybe Newt can advise
on that topic since his recent involvement with Fanny Mae pocketed
millions of tax payer dollars.

The unscrupulous activities of Wall Street makes regulation necessary
since their greed knows no boundaries and they can't be bothered to
regulate themselves.

The only way current government will change is by voting the bums out.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Oh, TGD, get serious.


But seriously, someone needs to compile an easy-to-read book which identifies the main problems, explains why, and explains how the status quo will be resistant toward such reform--unless enough people demand it.

Basically, they need to be armed with the "right" ideas. People's concepts of liberty, capitalism, and government have been distorted.

Some of the widely accepted ideals in America literally blow my mind.

For example a bunch of us will sit down after work on a friday afternoon with a couple of beers, guys and girls with all kinds of political backgrounds, and one thing we all agree on is how bizzare a) the "American way" of doing things is, and b) how fucked your political system is.

No disrespect to the US, you guys have been the world super power for over 50 years so you must be doing something right, but some of your core ideas are very much out of step with the rest of the world.

Lootifer wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Oh, TGD, get serious.


But seriously, someone needs to compile an easy-to-read book which identifies the main problems, explains why, and explains how the status quo will be resistant toward such reform--unless enough people demand it.

Basically, they need to be armed with the "right" ideas. People's concepts of liberty, capitalism, and government have been distorted.

Some of the widely accepted ideals in America literally blow my mind.

For example a bunch of us will sit down after work on a friday afternoon with a couple of beers, guys and girls with all kinds of political backgrounds, and one thing we all agree on is how bizzare a) the "American way" of doing things is, and b) how fucked your political system is.

No disrespect to the US, you guys have been the world super power for over 50 years so you must be doing something right, but some of your core ideas are very much out of step with the rest of the world.

Like what? Just curious not looking for a fight........ yet (cue ominous music).

Inb4 "What ideas? LIKE FREEDOM?!?! FUCKING LIBERTY?!?!?!"

Well the American way refers to all this constitional stuff like freedom and liberty, but also the other stuff like gun laws and the very strong conservative representation. I am purely acting on assertion here but I would guess that the US has the highest "conservative" representation in the world?

As far as your political system goes your system is just like an exxaggeration of the rest of the world; politics is shit, just moreso in the US.

edit: For example: The conservative party in New Zealand which probably has similar policies to Republicans got 2.5% of the vote in the recent election.

Lootifer wrote:Well the American way refers to all this constitional stuff like freedom and liberty, but also the other stuff like gun laws and the very strong conservative representation. I am purely acting on assertion here but I would guess that the US has the highest "conservative" representation in the world?

As far as your political system goes your system is just like an exxaggeration of the rest of the world; politics is shit, just moreso in the US.

How do I sum up 300+ years of history and compare to the different histories of Europe, Australia, and where are you from again? I'm a typical American, and I can't be bothered by such small details outside my immediate realm of attention.


The Constitution is a defining moment in the history of the US. I guess for hundreds of years it's how Americans perceived themselves to be different from the rest. The central government was extremely weak, while the States did what they wanted for awhile, but generally people were left to their own associations. From the 1930s and steadily on, the central government expanded while the sovereignty of the States was whittled away. Yet, people seem to have been brow-beaten into accepting this as the new freedom. Two World Wars and a Cold War probably did it.

There's also the feeling of "American Exceptionalism." The Frontier/expansion to the West with its history of homesteading added to this independent and unique mentality (i.e. freedom and liberty). Not being dragged into silly European wars also helped... For awhile, not having a government tell you what to do really added to this past sense of freedom and liberty. Plug "American Exceptionalism" into the National Security State of the 1950s onward, and that could explain a lot about the US today.


Cutting off immigration was a big problem for today, in my opinion. America was defined by different nationalities, with their continuous influxes into the country. When that largely ceased (since the 1930s?), I think the US lost a large part of itself. All these immigrants coming to a country where they perceived to be able to do better. That aided to this sense of "freedom and liberty," which I presume was lacking in their motherlands.

Democracy in America by Alexander de Tocqueville describes the US "way back in the day," early 1800s...



Nowadays, those notions of "freedom" and "liberty" are just a shell. People have lost sight of the past generations. Today, there aren't any true conservatives. Nearly all Americans are adamant supporters of the central government, and today's "conservatives" will use the central government in order to reinforce their conservative/traditional stance, but that wasn't what conservatism was about.

Perhaps, guns are a symbol of past freedom. It's comforting to have the feeling that you could somehow resist the central government... Or really, it's just about the pleasures of hunting. Guns are fun, Lootifer. For Yankees, guns tend not to be--well, especially for Californians. They didn't develop a positive relationship with guns when they were younger. They mostly see them in movies, books, media, and very few see that "in the streets."

Lootifer wrote:Well the American way refers to all this constitional stuff like freedom and liberty, but also the other stuff like gun laws and the very strong conservative representation. I am purely acting on assertion here but I would guess that the US has the highest "conservative" representation in the world?

As far as your political system goes your system is just like an exxaggeration of the rest of the world; politics is shit, just moreso in the US.

edit: For example: The conservative party in New Zealand which probably has similar policies to Republicans got 2.5% of the vote in the recent election.

Since the US only has (realistically) two political parties, then that means that your preferences must be lumped into one of the two, which may not represent much of your preferences. For example, if you don't want taxes to rise, then you'll most likely vote Republican, which most likely won't tax you--but they're likely to support other things which you didn't want either.

If you want the state to provide more for education, then you're likely to vote Democrat, but they probably will shift spending on education to fund Medicare and Medicaid and the efforts, so boo hoo.

Regarding foreign policy, both parties have been consistently interventionist for the past 80 years.... Even more so since 2001...


Maybe the distortion occurred during the Cold War. That left some psychological scars from perhaps the least transparent knife in the history of the world. In other words, all that state propaganda and government crack-downs on Communists could be a source of the modern day distortion... It's hard to say.

Hrmm, so greater democracy would be a good thing (multiparty/mixed representation etc)?

How would you even begin to think about achieving that with incumberants (Repubs and Democrats) likely to dig their heels in every inch of the way? (including the propaganda that will convince the public to also dig heels in - see: Scottys posts lol).

thegreekdog wrote:

oVo wrote:How do you propose to entice those who write the laws
and profit from the current system to alter anything?

The term "campaign reform" has been bandied about
for years and never been acted on.

The only people smart enough to actually fix the problem
and make this "democracy" function properly are also
smart enough not to get bogged down in this muck.

I just said that exact same thing!

Campaign finance reform won't happen because the people that would reform it directly benefit from it. Thus, we need OWS protestors to focus on that issue rather than on whether Wall Street has greedy people, while sipping latte from a Starbucks cup, checking the latest iTunes on the iPhone, driving a BMW.

We can trust Ron Paul in this area

Lootifer wrote:Well the American way refers to all this constitional stuff like freedom and liberty, but also the other stuff like gun laws and the very strong conservative representation. I am purely acting on assertion here but I would guess that the US has the highest "conservative" representation in the world?

As far as your political system goes your system is just like an exxaggeration of the rest of the world; politics is shit, just moreso in the US.

edit: For example: The conservative party in New Zealand which probably has similar policies to Republicans got 2.5% of the vote in the recent election.

Well yeah, we are a free country, so of course we have the highest "conservative" representation in the world.

We are losing our freedom and being enslaved by debt, fast

Lootifer wrote:Hrmm, so greater democracy would be a good thing (multiparty/mixed representation etc)?

How would you even begin to think about achieving that with incumberants (Repubs and Democrats) likely to dig their heels in every inch of the way? (including the propaganda that will convince the public to also dig heels in - see: Scottys posts lol).

That's a great question. Got no answer for ya.

Another one involves reducing the susceptibility of the US government to rent-seeking... e.g. making the flows of money more transparent (PACs must disclose all sources of funding).

But yes, there's that constraint from the status quo...

It won't stop me from studying it, and if I can outline some kind of plan and convince enough Americans of the benefits, then at least I'd know my arguments, and the ones which I support, are the correct ones. Perhaps it would just be a matter of time, but it feels good man to be right.

What if "Occupy Wall Street" was named "Regulate Wall Street"?

What if CAT really spelled Dog?

Lootifer wrote:Hrmm, so greater democracy would be a good thing (multiparty/mixed representation etc)?

How would you even begin to think about achieving that with incumberants (Repubs and Democrats) likely to dig their heels in every inch of the way? (including the propaganda that will convince the public to also dig heels in - see: Scottys posts lol).

I've been lobbying for more political parties since I was in college (and by "lobbying" I mean talking loudly to no one in particular). I think that's one of the major problems, made an even bigger problem due to campaign finance issues (which BBS laid out).

In terms of adherence to the U.S. Constitution, I don't want to get into a debate. Suffice it to say, that people on both sides simplify the argument in terms of one side being "You can't change this! The framers were brilliant!" and "We can do whatever the f*ck we want; the Constitution is a living (or dead) document!" That's not really true on either side. The U.S. Constitution can be changed by amending it. It used to happen all the time; it doesn't happen anymore.