I have to be fair here Agent, “anything” dismantling the “Obama” agenda is far too vague, and all encompassing at the same time. “Any” action to stop Obama’s “Agenda” is bad? What is Obama’s agenda in relation to any individual law? I like to take things piece by piece on things like disassembling individual laws or passing new ones.
While I do feel that a lot of Obama’s laws have been bad, we need to name them and name solutions alongside them. Some of Obama’s actions may not have been bad, I would need to see the law. I can’t just blanket remove everything.
June 9, 2017 at 3:52 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
5
1
I’m tired today, I meant any action to stop the Obama agenda is good?
UW thinks the same way. We have to have a higher standard.
June 9, 2017 at 3:58 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
7
9
Agent; I agree with bob; your comment is both too vague and too restrictive to one person’s socialist agenda. Use ‘dismantle progressive / socialist agenda’ to cover Dodd-Frank, ACA, HillaryCare, etc.
June 9, 2017 at 4:31 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
4
2
“Agent; I agree with bob; your comment is both too vague and too restrictive to one person’s socialist agenda. Use ‘dismantle progressive / socialist agenda’ to cover Dodd-Frank, ACA, HillaryCare, etc.”
My concern is not this, as your fix to say we need to stop socialist agendas wouldn’t fix it either. This would be like me saying I want to stop all racists, and any law passed with that agenda is good, regardless of the people caught in the cross fire, or the overreach. However, saying we need to remove the Dodd frank act, a specific law, does fix it, or if I passed a law that companies firing a person for being black (civil rights bill) was punishable. However, if I started passing constant laws, like making it illegal to have a disparity of black people and white people in jail, meeting the agenda of trying to stop racism, we would either have to arrest more white people or arrest less black people, in the event of an actual disparity that is driven by differences in occurrence rates. This would be an agenda that would cause harm but would be with intent of a good agenda.
There is a second aspect of this I am concerned with: If any action to stop Obama’s action is good, then we could get a bad republican who stops a bad action, and uses that to pass a bad law himself, even if he has an overall good agenda.
It’s far too dangerous to have this mentality, on either side.
June 10, 2017 at 8:39 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
5
5
I used the adjective ‘socialist’ in front of ‘agenda’.
Consider that to delimit my intentions.
June 10, 2017 at 8:40 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
5
7
… and, yes, I want to confront ALL socialist agendas and defeat as many of them as possible, regardless of who is pushing them while in / not in public office.
June 9, 2017 at 3:49 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
7
7
What has been the growth rate of GDP over the Obama years?
Please provide stats that show ‘economic destruction’ under Reagan.
Ready, steady, …. GO!
You know, with how many times I’ve called him wrong and given him the metrics of why he is wrong, I never thought to simply ask him to show the measures by which Reagan caused destruction, or laws.
I’m an idiot. I don’t think he will reply, but good comment/question Polar.
Bob, sorry if I speak too plainly for you. I am not a good word parser like a Progressive. How about some reality of what Obama has done to Community Banks? They have either gone out or forced to sell to larger banks because of the over reaching mountain of regulations imposed on them.
I insured one of the best Community Banks in our region from the Property, GL, WC, Auto to the Bond. They were forced to sell to a much larger multi location bank because of Bawney & Chris and what they did under the Obama regime. Bawney was the one who said Fannie & Freddie was sound right before the sub prime mortgage mess and he had the oversight on it along with his running mate Chris in the Senate. What total idiots they were. Glad both are gone now and we can start treating small business fairly again. This is a win and don’t tell me it isn’t.
June 9, 2017 at 6:05 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
4
1
Agent,
No worries, you don’t have to word parse like them or worry about my thoughts regarding you. I defend you a lot too after all and it’s clear I value your commentary more than many of the liberals here. Just list a specific bill that has done damage, or ask a question like Polar. I’m often absurd myself.
Polar just gave me a good example, I just tried to give you one. I like systems that encourage growth. You gave me info on the immigration aspects that I didn’t initially understand, you have your moments too. When I said I changed my mind regarding immigration, it was not until after you mentioned a potential way of finding out how many illegal immigrants there are. Then I saw a study mentioning that method and how we currently find out how many illegal immigrants there are (namely that they don’t realize that immigrants often use dead voters or real people’s names, so their immigrant name won’t show up on voter roles). I like specific examples. I thrive on them, I love hearing them.
Contrary to the liberals you mention here we all integrate and exchange and change ideas often, and don’t have the same position, and seem to call each other out often.
Interesting regarding the bank, and it doesn’t surprise me. Many of the regulations were terrible. You could reference back to the regulation you believe caused it and why. It’s an excellent example if you did.
Of course it would take more time, which I doubt you have though, so I do get why you don’t.
June 10, 2017 at 8:42 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
3
2
bob; Agent and I both may limit our posts and leave out key dtails. I do so due to time constraints, while feeling a need to reply to comments, or to leave initial comments on a new article.
Thanks for pushing me (us) to clarify or correct some of our vague comments, or mistakes. bear culpa (sometimes).
June 15, 2017 at 1:43 pm
Jax Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Thanks for your ‘stupid as usual’ comment, corporal planet
I don’t like Monster Mega-banks, like the majority of Americans, and I use small financial institutions. But the Dodd-Frank legislation doesn’t target well enough those large banks that contributed to nearly all the problems resulting in adverse effects on consumers/ clients and the 2008 Meltdown. As has been stated many times and places recently, the smaller banks suffered the most under Dodd-Frank due to the strain of compliance effort and cost. In the end, consumers of (small) banking services suffered most of the consequences. In fact, I overheard someone yesterday mentioning the hyuuuuge increase in mortgage loan disclosure paperwork due to Dodd-Frank.
Bob, sorry to not post volumes of research like you do. I have a business to run, speak from experience in the market place, have insureds who give me info about what has happened to them and how it has affected them. If you have clear eyes, know right from wrong, you would never ever agree with a Progressive Socialist on any policy. They are serial liars, think they are smarter than we are and call Conservatives names if we disagree with them. Have we not been having a contentious conversation with them for 7+ years on Healthcare? That is the best example I can offer. Please cite in your research what law Obama passed in his 8 year reign that the American People can agree was great for this country. Per Polar, ready, steady, go.
Probably due to eight years of oppressive, tyrannic rule by a Socialist. I can’t think of any other greater reason.
June 15, 2017 at 2:14 pm
Michael says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Wasn’t addressing you, Polar; and Agent was being pretty snarky to someone who backs him up regularly. I’m far from a fan of Obama, but it didn’t change my personality. I’m guessing Agent is just being Agent.
June 9, 2017 at 1:41 pm
BP says:
Like or Dislike:
9
1
Obviously Pelosi(D) would squawk.
Her Vulture capital husband feeds on the carrion of Dodd(D)- Frank(D).
…and notice how Dodd-Frank was “Sold” to save us from, “To Big to Fail”? Formerly, 50% of Bank asserts were in 50 Banks but now in 5 Banks. ( Way, way to Bigger to Fail, BUT more bigger Campaign Contributions, to be sure.)
BP
Obvious that Pelosi(D) would squawk.
Her Vulture fund husband feeds on carrion from Dodd(D)- Frank(D).
…. and rember how Dodd- Frank was sold to Stop ” To Big to Fail”,
… but formerly 50 banks controlled 50% of Assets, now down to 5 Banks. ( Now way, way “To Bigger to Fail” , with way, way bigger Campaign Contributions to be sure.)
BP
The financial crisis had a lot to do with Clinton and his idea that everyone deserved to own their own house. The BALLOON loans then appeared. What a disaster!!!
I believe that Home-ownership is a cornerstone to Citizenship.
Problem was, Banks rigged the system with ARM”s having Reset Rates that borrowers couldn’t possibly pay.
Banks wanted future Foreclosers and recycle at higher Prices. The Scam System was overwhelmed by foreclosures. The Banks got bailed out. The Homeowners went broke.
( Mtg regs should have required Resets be limited to payments Homeowners could pay.)
BP
The problem was that Dodd-Frank forced banks to make mortgage loans to people that would not have qualified prior to Dodd-Frank. They did everyone, except the investment banking industry, a huge disservice & these failed loans caused the 2007 economic collapse.
Thanks again democrats.
ummm, what? Dodd-Frank was signed in 2010 so how does that “force banks to make mortgage loans to people that would not have qualified prior…” which, according to you “these failed loans caused the 2007 economic collapse”.. Dodd Frank was to try and fix the predatory lending that led to the 2007 collapse, but signed in 2010.. your timeline to lay blame is all wrong.. you’re welcome.
Major bank consolidation may be result of excessive government regulation used as a tool to remove private competition. Mitt Romney implied this Dodd-Frank was a “kiss” to the New York banks. Having fewer choices may be more about power than providing local client options.
Big Difference between Primary Dealers ( PDs – Private unregulated Wall Street Banks), and regulated Commercial Banks.
PDs were the Banks Geithner ( As Pres of NY FED) opened the LOC [ QE1] for after Bear Sterns, and Paulson switched TARP funding for PDs in Sept., in order to cover their Enron Loophole commodity margin calls. ( Remember/ Paulson forced the Commercials to take TARP to obfuscate the primary use of the funds.)
Where are Chris Dodd and Barney Frank these days? Working in the movie industry rating organization and retired, respectively. What more needs to be said about those two ‘amateurs’?
Do you really have an issue with Barney Frank retiring at 73? Do you honestly expect every person who is elected to office to hold an official government position into their 70’s and 80’s or until they die – not including Supreme Court Judges?
Bawney stayed far too long and so did Dodd. Stayed just long enough to mess everything up. That is what Progressive Democrats do. Anti-business, over regulation, over taxation and negative growth.
No, yours is a Straw Man Argument. Retiring at 73 is ok, if that’s what he wants to do. But, how old is Pelosi?
My point, which you ignored, perhaps because it is vague, is that Barney Frank had to retire – earlier than 73 – due to the political circumstances that made him ineffective. Same goes for Chris Dodd.
Further, OLD Congressmen/ Executive Politicians (Governors, POTUSes) shouldn’t enact ANY legislation they draft if they aren’t going to be around long enough to be held accountable for their mistakes; e.g. Obama, Holder, Lynch, Jarrett, etc. That is also a reason for limiting executive orders, appointment of life-term SCOTUS Justices while in the last year of a POTUS’s term in office, criminal pardons while in the last year of a POTUS’s term in office, etc.
I ALREADY KNEW all are over 70. Most are over 75. OLD. Yet, Barney Frank retiring BEFORE 73 is appropriate while these people AREN’T retired.
My point is supported by the fossils I listed who continue in politics while Frank & Dodd did great harm to the US banking industry, especially the ability of small banks to compete. And some worthy, qualified home mortgage applicants were turned away AFTER Dodd-Frank was enacted. So, BOTH Dodd and Frank had to get out of Congress because the public turned against them and neither stood a chance of being re-elected.
You missed my point, and tried to divert from the issue by pointing to the internet … which supports the claim that 73 isn’t old enough to require politicians and SCOTUS Justices to retire.
I agree I missed your point. Of course you didn’t actually come close to making a point, you just asked how old people were. Next time you try to make a point, try actually writing it down in the post!
Nah. That won’t work with Libitterals who will just divert from the point that Dodd-Frank was a failed attempt to avoid future financial crisis because those two oafs didn’t know squat about the issue and their ‘act’ adversely impacted BOTH small banks and consumers (bank customers, people seeking home loans).
Off topic, on another failed ‘act’:
Are you heading to Central Park for the Monday night performance of Caesar & Brutus? I’ll wager the subways will be jam packed with Libitterals seeking another way to vent their frustration.
Polar, our new President will be in Milwaukee this week talking jobs, job training to grow this economy. I wonder how many young protestors will be there with their signs protesting his appearance. They clearly do not want to be trained to do a job and be productive citizens.
They are tripping over themselves to bring back the kind of speculative casino capitalism that wrecked the global economy ten years ago.
Ten years ago? This type of destruction goes back to Reagan. Reaganism has led us to where we currently are.
No, no it is hasn’t.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
I have to be fair here Agent, “anything” dismantling the “Obama” agenda is far too vague, and all encompassing at the same time. “Any” action to stop Obama’s “Agenda” is bad? What is Obama’s agenda in relation to any individual law? I like to take things piece by piece on things like disassembling individual laws or passing new ones.
While I do feel that a lot of Obama’s laws have been bad, we need to name them and name solutions alongside them. Some of Obama’s actions may not have been bad, I would need to see the law. I can’t just blanket remove everything.
I’m tired today, I meant any action to stop the Obama agenda is good?
UW thinks the same way. We have to have a higher standard.
Agent; I agree with bob; your comment is both too vague and too restrictive to one person’s socialist agenda. Use ‘dismantle progressive / socialist agenda’ to cover Dodd-Frank, ACA, HillaryCare, etc.
“Agent; I agree with bob; your comment is both too vague and too restrictive to one person’s socialist agenda. Use ‘dismantle progressive / socialist agenda’ to cover Dodd-Frank, ACA, HillaryCare, etc.”
My concern is not this, as your fix to say we need to stop socialist agendas wouldn’t fix it either. This would be like me saying I want to stop all racists, and any law passed with that agenda is good, regardless of the people caught in the cross fire, or the overreach. However, saying we need to remove the Dodd frank act, a specific law, does fix it, or if I passed a law that companies firing a person for being black (civil rights bill) was punishable. However, if I started passing constant laws, like making it illegal to have a disparity of black people and white people in jail, meeting the agenda of trying to stop racism, we would either have to arrest more white people or arrest less black people, in the event of an actual disparity that is driven by differences in occurrence rates. This would be an agenda that would cause harm but would be with intent of a good agenda.
There is a second aspect of this I am concerned with: If any action to stop Obama’s action is good, then we could get a bad republican who stops a bad action, and uses that to pass a bad law himself, even if he has an overall good agenda.
It’s far too dangerous to have this mentality, on either side.
I used the adjective ‘socialist’ in front of ‘agenda’.
Consider that to delimit my intentions.
… and, yes, I want to confront ALL socialist agendas and defeat as many of them as possible, regardless of who is pushing them while in / not in public office.
What has been the growth rate of GDP over the Obama years?
Please provide stats that show ‘economic destruction’ under Reagan.
Ready, steady, …. GO!
You know, with how many times I’ve called him wrong and given him the metrics of why he is wrong, I never thought to simply ask him to show the measures by which Reagan caused destruction, or laws.
I’m an idiot. I don’t think he will reply, but good comment/question Polar.
Bob, sorry if I speak too plainly for you. I am not a good word parser like a Progressive. How about some reality of what Obama has done to Community Banks? They have either gone out or forced to sell to larger banks because of the over reaching mountain of regulations imposed on them.
I insured one of the best Community Banks in our region from the Property, GL, WC, Auto to the Bond. They were forced to sell to a much larger multi location bank because of Bawney & Chris and what they did under the Obama regime. Bawney was the one who said Fannie & Freddie was sound right before the sub prime mortgage mess and he had the oversight on it along with his running mate Chris in the Senate. What total idiots they were. Glad both are gone now and we can start treating small business fairly again. This is a win and don’t tell me it isn’t.
Agent,
No worries, you don’t have to word parse like them or worry about my thoughts regarding you. I defend you a lot too after all and it’s clear I value your commentary more than many of the liberals here. Just list a specific bill that has done damage, or ask a question like Polar. I’m often absurd myself.
Polar just gave me a good example, I just tried to give you one. I like systems that encourage growth. You gave me info on the immigration aspects that I didn’t initially understand, you have your moments too. When I said I changed my mind regarding immigration, it was not until after you mentioned a potential way of finding out how many illegal immigrants there are. Then I saw a study mentioning that method and how we currently find out how many illegal immigrants there are (namely that they don’t realize that immigrants often use dead voters or real people’s names, so their immigrant name won’t show up on voter roles). I like specific examples. I thrive on them, I love hearing them.
Contrary to the liberals you mention here we all integrate and exchange and change ideas often, and don’t have the same position, and seem to call each other out often.
Interesting regarding the bank, and it doesn’t surprise me. Many of the regulations were terrible. You could reference back to the regulation you believe caused it and why. It’s an excellent example if you did.
Of course it would take more time, which I doubt you have though, so I do get why you don’t.
bob; Agent and I both may limit our posts and leave out key dtails. I do so due to time constraints, while feeling a need to reply to comments, or to leave initial comments on a new article.
Thanks for pushing me (us) to clarify or correct some of our vague comments, or mistakes. bear culpa (sometimes).
Thanks for your ‘stupid as usual’ comment, corporal planet
Which of the SMALL banks that have been adversely impacted by Dodd-Frank were making speculative investments?
Why didn’t BOTH the CFO and CEO of AIG see their hyuuuugely risky accumulation of CDO exposure?
Again; which SPECIFIC small banks made speculative investments in CDOs?
Ready, steady, …. GO!
I’ll return next week to see your reply…
I don’t like Monster Mega-banks, like the majority of Americans, and I use small financial institutions. But the Dodd-Frank legislation doesn’t target well enough those large banks that contributed to nearly all the problems resulting in adverse effects on consumers/ clients and the 2008 Meltdown. As has been stated many times and places recently, the smaller banks suffered the most under Dodd-Frank due to the strain of compliance effort and cost. In the end, consumers of (small) banking services suffered most of the consequences. In fact, I overheard someone yesterday mentioning the hyuuuuge increase in mortgage loan disclosure paperwork due to Dodd-Frank.
Bob, sorry to not post volumes of research like you do. I have a business to run, speak from experience in the market place, have insureds who give me info about what has happened to them and how it has affected them. If you have clear eyes, know right from wrong, you would never ever agree with a Progressive Socialist on any policy. They are serial liars, think they are smarter than we are and call Conservatives names if we disagree with them. Have we not been having a contentious conversation with them for 7+ years on Healthcare? That is the best example I can offer. Please cite in your research what law Obama passed in his 8 year reign that the American People can agree was great for this country. Per Polar, ready, steady, go.
Why does your writing always seem so defensive and negative?
Probably due to eight years of oppressive, tyrannic rule by a Socialist. I can’t think of any other greater reason.
Wasn’t addressing you, Polar; and Agent was being pretty snarky to someone who backs him up regularly. I’m far from a fan of Obama, but it didn’t change my personality. I’m guessing Agent is just being Agent.
Obviously Pelosi(D) would squawk.
Her Vulture capital husband feeds on the carrion of Dodd(D)- Frank(D).
…and notice how Dodd-Frank was “Sold” to save us from, “To Big to Fail”? Formerly, 50% of Bank asserts were in 50 Banks but now in 5 Banks. ( Way, way to Bigger to Fail, BUT more bigger Campaign Contributions, to be sure.)
BP
Obvious that Pelosi(D) would squawk.
Her Vulture fund husband feeds on carrion from Dodd(D)- Frank(D).
…. and rember how Dodd- Frank was sold to Stop ” To Big to Fail”,
… but formerly 50 banks controlled 50% of Assets, now down to 5 Banks. ( Now way, way “To Bigger to Fail” , with way, way bigger Campaign Contributions to be sure.)
BP
The financial crisis had a lot to do with Clinton and his idea that everyone deserved to own their own house. The BALLOON loans then appeared. What a disaster!!!
I believe that Home-ownership is a cornerstone to Citizenship.
Problem was, Banks rigged the system with ARM”s having Reset Rates that borrowers couldn’t possibly pay.
Banks wanted future Foreclosers and recycle at higher Prices. The Scam System was overwhelmed by foreclosures. The Banks got bailed out. The Homeowners went broke.
( Mtg regs should have required Resets be limited to payments Homeowners could pay.)
BP
The problem was that Dodd-Frank forced banks to make mortgage loans to people that would not have qualified prior to Dodd-Frank. They did everyone, except the investment banking industry, a huge disservice & these failed loans caused the 2007 economic collapse.
Thanks again democrats.
ummm, what? Dodd-Frank was signed in 2010 so how does that “force banks to make mortgage loans to people that would not have qualified prior…” which, according to you “these failed loans caused the 2007 economic collapse”.. Dodd Frank was to try and fix the predatory lending that led to the 2007 collapse, but signed in 2010.. your timeline to lay blame is all wrong.. you’re welcome.
Major bank consolidation may be result of excessive government regulation used as a tool to remove private competition. Mitt Romney implied this Dodd-Frank was a “kiss” to the New York banks. Having fewer choices may be more about power than providing local client options.
Big Difference between Primary Dealers ( PDs – Private unregulated Wall Street Banks), and regulated Commercial Banks.
PDs were the Banks Geithner ( As Pres of NY FED) opened the LOC [ QE1] for after Bear Sterns, and Paulson switched TARP funding for PDs in Sept., in order to cover their Enron Loophole commodity margin calls. ( Remember/ Paulson forced the Commercials to take TARP to obfuscate the primary use of the funds.)
Where are Chris Dodd and Barney Frank these days? Working in the movie industry rating organization and retired, respectively. What more needs to be said about those two ‘amateurs’?
Do you really have an issue with Barney Frank retiring at 73? Do you honestly expect every person who is elected to office to hold an official government position into their 70’s and 80’s or until they die – not including Supreme Court Judges?
Bawney stayed far too long and so did Dodd. Stayed just long enough to mess everything up. That is what Progressive Democrats do. Anti-business, over regulation, over taxation and negative growth.
No, yours is a Straw Man Argument. Retiring at 73 is ok, if that’s what he wants to do. But, how old is Pelosi?
My point, which you ignored, perhaps because it is vague, is that Barney Frank had to retire – earlier than 73 – due to the political circumstances that made him ineffective. Same goes for Chris Dodd.
Further, OLD Congressmen/ Executive Politicians (Governors, POTUSes) shouldn’t enact ANY legislation they draft if they aren’t going to be around long enough to be held accountable for their mistakes; e.g. Obama, Holder, Lynch, Jarrett, etc. That is also a reason for limiting executive orders, appointment of life-term SCOTUS Justices while in the last year of a POTUS’s term in office, criminal pardons while in the last year of a POTUS’s term in office, etc.
Yogi – I am not your personal researcher. Type their names into google and figure out out how old they are for yourself.
I ALREADY KNEW all are over 70. Most are over 75. OLD. Yet, Barney Frank retiring BEFORE 73 is appropriate while these people AREN’T retired.
My point is supported by the fossils I listed who continue in politics while Frank & Dodd did great harm to the US banking industry, especially the ability of small banks to compete. And some worthy, qualified home mortgage applicants were turned away AFTER Dodd-Frank was enacted. So, BOTH Dodd and Frank had to get out of Congress because the public turned against them and neither stood a chance of being re-elected.
You missed my point, and tried to divert from the issue by pointing to the internet … which supports the claim that 73 isn’t old enough to require politicians and SCOTUS Justices to retire.
I agree I missed your point. Of course you didn’t actually come close to making a point, you just asked how old people were. Next time you try to make a point, try actually writing it down in the post!
Nah. That won’t work with Libitterals who will just divert from the point that Dodd-Frank was a failed attempt to avoid future financial crisis because those two oafs didn’t know squat about the issue and their ‘act’ adversely impacted BOTH small banks and consumers (bank customers, people seeking home loans).
Off topic, on another failed ‘act’:
Are you heading to Central Park for the Monday night performance of Caesar & Brutus? I’ll wager the subways will be jam packed with Libitterals seeking another way to vent their frustration.
“… on a party line vote.”
Translation: Dems want to continue punishing businesses, Republicans want to allow them to compete and better serve the public.
Your welcome.
Polar, our new President will be in Milwaukee this week talking jobs, job training to grow this economy. I wonder how many young protestors will be there with their signs protesting his appearance. They clearly do not want to be trained to do a job and be productive citizens.
Partially Wrong! Some of those young protestors are being paid to resist. But Sore-os isn’t earning even a modest return on that investment.