In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On November 14 2014 06:29 ref4 wrote: I hate how America is divided between two parties that act like 10-year-olds and instead of campaigning what positive changes they will bring they campaign on negatives (both real and unfound) the opposing party will bring. We can't even have mature discussion on issues without resorting to name-callings like leftards, republican'ts, racists (directed to conservatives by liberals) etc.
Seriously what the hell happened to America?
Two party system. It's really easy to just make the other guy look bad, don't need to look good yourself, just less bad than the other guy. Now imagine if you had these two kindergardener parties doing their shit, but you could actually elect someone else. Like in a reasonable system that has more than two parties and allows people to actually start a new party if the existing ones are shit. That means politicians would actually have to try to do something useful and look good and actively promote why you should vote for them as opposed to why you should prevent the other guy from winning.
Germany has a multi party system but the two broad parties representing Center Right and Center Left dominate, whats the difference? That the more extreme people have to form a smaller party that as part of a coalition deal gets to dictate policy anyway? The UK has a multi party system, as does Canada. In all cases it boils down to broadly left of center and right of center stuff, and the politics is equally dirty. The only true difference is that the Republicans electorate is much more reactionary even as the country broadly accepts more liberal norms.
On November 14 2014 06:01 GreenHorizons wrote: This JP Morgan Settlement is just disgusting.
The real sticking point, though, is that one year after the settlement, the Department of Justice has not brought forth any criminal charges linked to mortgage matters or otherwise, she said. "How is it possible that you can have this much fraud and not a single person has done anything criminal." Fleischmann is credited with providing evidence that helped result in JPMorgan's $13 billion settlement. In 2006, she joined the firm as a deal manager. A few months later, she felt uneasy when a new diligence manager came to JPM with "no email" policy. Then, roughly half of the loans in a multimillion-loan pool had overstated incomes, Fleischmann said. A manicurist, for example, claimed to make a six-figure salary, she recalled. She knew these kinds of loans would probably be at risk for default, putting the investors who bought these securities into jeopardy.
How in the hell could you have to pay billions of dollars for what you did, yet you didn't break any laws while getting the billions you have to give back?
Add to that $7 billion of it is tax deductible....?!
From the quoted text somebody submitted an incorrect income statement. That person should thus be prosecuted according to you? Since in the text that was the only person committing fraud?
No. My question is why pay the money if they did nothing wrong? Also, why is it tax deductible? Finally, why wouldn't they do it again?
Not a lawyer, but my understanding is that both parties will agree to a settlement either if they agree that the settlement is appropriate for the deed done, or if they agree that a trial will be difficult / uncertain and so the settlement is just seen a better outcome for everyone involved. Why the current justice department is more interested in fines than prosecutions is something you'd have to ask them. The top guys at Enron went to jail for fraud, as did the Madoff so why the bankers aren't is an open question. I'd speculate that criminal prosecutions would cast a pretty wide net (the loan officer, manicurist and real estate agent, along with bankers / executives) and the justice department wants to avoid that.
Not sure why it wouldn't be tax deductible. The tax is on income and fines reduce income. Deductible doesn't mean that the fines are meaningless either - a deduction is not a credit - so I'm not sure what the issue would be.
You wouldn't do it again because the fines make it prohibitive and the people on the other side (who have a lot of power) of the fraud will be on the look-out for it. Repeated actions also tend to be met with greater penalties.
Interestingly some real estate agents involved in similar fraud got off the hook by claiming that banks didn't care that incomes were being over-stated, and so the fraud was 'immaterial'. If the banks went to trial they could make the same argument, that the investors didn't really care either, and try to get off the hook that way.
But if they made more off it than they paid for it how is it prohibitive? Especially the actual employees who made the decisions/pushed the product, who paid nothing but get to keep all the money they made off of it?
By the way they weren't 'fines', if they were 'fines' they wouldn't have been able to deduct them.
To that point, there's nothing wrong with selling 'crap' and you only need to disclose what you're required to disclose. These aren't consumer products. Selling a loan that is 'defective' is legitimate.
Well the whole settlement is basically about them not disclosing what they needed to disclose, and they essentially payed billions to avoid admitting it.
On November 14 2014 06:01 GreenHorizons wrote: This JP Morgan Settlement is just disgusting.
The real sticking point, though, is that one year after the settlement, the Department of Justice has not brought forth any criminal charges linked to mortgage matters or otherwise, she said. "How is it possible that you can have this much fraud and not a single person has done anything criminal." Fleischmann is credited with providing evidence that helped result in JPMorgan's $13 billion settlement. In 2006, she joined the firm as a deal manager. A few months later, she felt uneasy when a new diligence manager came to JPM with "no email" policy. Then, roughly half of the loans in a multimillion-loan pool had overstated incomes, Fleischmann said. A manicurist, for example, claimed to make a six-figure salary, she recalled. She knew these kinds of loans would probably be at risk for default, putting the investors who bought these securities into jeopardy.
How in the hell could you have to pay billions of dollars for what you did, yet you didn't break any laws while getting the billions you have to give back?
Add to that $7 billion of it is tax deductible....?!
From the quoted text somebody submitted an incorrect income statement. That person should thus be prosecuted according to you? Since in the text that was the only person committing fraud?
No. My question is why pay the money if they did nothing wrong? Also, why is it tax deductible? Finally, why wouldn't they do it again?
Not a lawyer, but my understanding is that both parties will agree to a settlement either if they agree that the settlement is appropriate for the deed done, or if they agree that a trial will be difficult / uncertain and so the settlement is just seen a better outcome for everyone involved. Why the current justice department is more interested in fines than prosecutions is something you'd have to ask them. The top guys at Enron went to jail for fraud, as did the Madoff so why the bankers aren't is an open question. I'd speculate that criminal prosecutions would cast a pretty wide net (the loan officer, manicurist and real estate agent, along with bankers / executives) and the justice department wants to avoid that.
Not sure why it wouldn't be tax deductible. The tax is on income and fines reduce income. Deductible doesn't mean that the fines are meaningless either - a deduction is not a credit - so I'm not sure what the issue would be.
You wouldn't do it again because the fines make it prohibitive and the people on the other side (who have a lot of power) of the fraud will be on the look-out for it. Repeated actions also tend to be met with greater penalties.
Interestingly some real estate agents involved in similar fraud got off the hook by claiming that banks didn't care that incomes were being over-stated, and so the fraud was 'immaterial'. If the banks went to trial they could make the same argument, that the investors didn't really care either, and try to get off the hook that way.
But if they made more off it than they paid for it how is it prohibitive? Especially the actual employees who made the decisions/pushed the product, who paid nothing but get to keep all the money they made off of it?
You'd have to look into the details. Paying X to settle could wipe out the profit they made off of the activity or make it small enough to not be worthwhile. As for the employees, they could have already lost their job over this, or been reprimanded in some way. And like I said before, those on the other side (well funded institutions) do have the means to look out for themselves and they'll be more wary now.
By the way they weren't 'fines', if they were 'fines' they wouldn't have been able to deduct them.
OK. So the parts that are fines they can't deduct, and the other part is what... reimbursement to those harmed? I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The deductibility seems like red herring.
To that point, there's nothing wrong with selling 'crap' and you only need to disclose what you're required to disclose. These aren't consumer products. Selling a loan that is 'defective' is legitimate.
Well the whole settlement is basically about them not disclosing what they needed to disclose, and they essentially payed billions to avoid admitting it.
Paying billions is a tacit admission. It's also not always clear how much disclosure you need or how accurate the disclosure really needs to be.
On November 14 2014 06:29 ref4 wrote: I hate how America is divided between two parties that act like 10-year-olds and instead of campaigning what positive changes they will bring they campaign on negatives (both real and unfound) the opposing party will bring. We can't even have mature discussion on issues without resorting to name-callings like leftards, republican'ts, racists (directed to conservatives by liberals) etc.
Seriously what the hell happened to America?
Two party system. It's really easy to just make the other guy look bad, don't need to look good yourself, just less bad than the other guy. Now imagine if you had these two kindergardener parties doing their shit, but you could actually elect someone else. Like in a reasonable system that has more than two parties and allows people to actually start a new party if the existing ones are shit. That means politicians would actually have to try to do something useful and look good and actively promote why you should vote for them as opposed to why you should prevent the other guy from winning.
Germany has a multi party system but the two broad parties representing Center Right and Center Left dominate, whats the difference? That the more extreme people have to form a smaller party that as part of a coalition deal gets to dictate policy anyway? The UK has a multi party system, as does Canada. In all cases it boils down to broadly left of center and right of center stuff, and the politics is equally dirty. The only true difference is that the Republicans electorate is much more reactionary even as the country broadly accepts more liberal norms.
Well of course the center parties do dominate, the only reason that place is the center is because it is roughly what most people agree upon. That is not bad.
But a multi-party system allows for fringe groups to build fringe parties (and become major parties if they convince people that their points are valid) And if your whole campaign boils down to "The other guy is worse" there are actually alternatives that people can vote for to make their distaste in that kind of behaviour clear. And those votes actually matter because a smaller party with more votes will have more options and thus more negotiating power when dealing with other parties to build a ruling coalition.
In a two party system, you just have to look better than the other guy. In a multi-party system, you have to actually look good to be elected, you can't just rely on making the other guy look bad, because there are multiple options besides you, not just one.
A multi-party system (with some additional rules like not requiring a 60% majority for any law to be passed) also helps avoiding the silly situation the US currently has where the legislative is basically incapable of passing any laws because both parties have enough power to prevent the other party from passing anything. If you have more than two parties, once again your major goal is usually not to just prevent anything from ever being passed to make the other guy look bad, because people have other choices in elections and can actually vote for neither you nor the other guy if you both act like kindergardeners. And if all parties are utter shit, it is even possible to fund a new party because the hurdle of entry to politics is not winning the absolute majority in a state before you get any seats anywhere.
I actually think the two party system allows for a broader spectrum than the multi-party system. Almost any country with multiple parties is run by either the conservatives or center-left in coalition with some fringe party that doesn't actually do anything besides getting one or two ministries. I'd argue that the tea party inside the Republican party actually has a bigger influence on the party policies than any other comparable small party in Europe.
A multi-party system (with some additional rules like not requiring a 60% majority for any law to be passed) also helps avoiding the silly situation the US currently has where the legislative is basically incapable of passing any laws because both parties have enough power to prevent the other party from passing anything.
This is not due to the multi-party system but rather due to the fact that the president is elected independently from the upper and lower house. In Germany for example the chancellor is always elected by the lower house which will guarantee that they're not facing opposition from both chambers.
On November 13 2014 08:29 Introvert wrote: There are so many juicy bits from Gruber (not just this clip). But what is funny, yet sad, is "we wrote it to make sure it wasn't scored as a tax," then the administration argues to the court that it is a tax, and Roberts upholds it as a tax. lol. This also seems like yet another perfect example of leftists acting dishonestly "but hey, it's for the greater good!" They are far too willing to overstep or act without authority just because they like the results or need to "get things done." And this is why the Republicans should be wary when making deals.
Get of your high horse and open your eyes! 'Doing shady for the greater good' is not a lefties trait, the right is just as guilty of it. Who started illegal wars, supplied weapons to terrorist and 'tortured some folks' again?
There are no scandals, apparently, so long as the opposition isn't on the side of the angels.
But your elitist apologism aside, I did get a good chuckle at including "illegal wars" in that list. But even looking at all three together--If that's your most damning accusations against the other side, you've got less mud to sling that I thought.
On November 14 2014 06:29 ref4 wrote: I hate how America is divided between two parties that act like 10-year-olds and instead of campaigning what positive changes they will bring they campaign on negatives (both real and unfound) the opposing party will bring. We can't even have mature discussion on issues without resorting to name-callings like leftards, republican'ts, racists (directed to conservatives by liberals) etc.
Seriously what the hell happened to America?
I would love to go back to the times when John Adams was described as having a "hideously hermaphroditic character."
On November 13 2014 08:29 Introvert wrote: There are so many juicy bits from Gruber (not just this clip). But what is funny, yet sad, is "we wrote it to make sure it wasn't scored as a tax," then the administration argues to the court that it is a tax, and Roberts upholds it as a tax. lol. This also seems like yet another perfect example of leftists acting dishonestly "but hey, it's for the greater good!" They are far too willing to overstep or act without authority just because they like the results or need to "get things done." And this is why the Republicans should be wary when making deals.
Get of your high horse and open your eyes! 'Doing shady for the greater good' is not a lefties trait, the right is just as guilty of it. Who started illegal wars, supplied weapons to terrorist and 'tortured some folks' again?
There are no scandals, apparently, so long as the opposition isn't on the side of the angels.
But your elitist apologism aside, I did get a good chuckle at including "illegal wars" in that list. But even looking at all three together--If that's your most damning accusations against the other side, you've got less mud to sling that I thought.
Who cares about the rule of law? Might makes right in the international realm. Law only matters when it comes to borders.
The tea party and establishment wings of the House Republican caucus are already splitting over how to respond to President Barack Obama's promised executive actions on immigration reform, which could be issued as soon as next week.
The big question is: Should Republicans be willing to shut down the government to block Obama's unilateral moves on immigration?
The far right believes they have the 2014 election outcomes, and therefore popular sentiment, on their side. But leadership sounds more cautious about wading into another showdown with the president after last year's shutdown left the Republican brand tarnished.
"Our goal here is to stop the president from violating his own oath of office and violating the Constitution. It's not to shut down the government.," House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) told reporters Thursday, though he added that "all options are on the table" and "no decisions have been made."
"Every administration needs this, needs that, needs all kinds of things," Boehner said. "If (Obama) wants to go off on his own, there are things he's just not going to get."
Yeah, not sure I understand the yearning for a past time, politically. Politics in the 18th and 19th centuries was very dirty. Take the election of Andrew Jackson. You couldn't say some of those things nowadays.
A federal judge struck down South Carolina’s ban on same-sex marriage Wednesday, opening the door to gay marriage in a state that has been one of the most resistant to LGBT rights.
Federal Judge Richard Gergel issued a 26-page ruling in favor of Charleston couple Colleen Condon and Anne Bleckley, who filed suit against Gov. Nikki Haley and Attorney General Alan Wilson after being denied a marriage license last month. The 4th Circuit, wrote Gergel, “unambiguously recognized a fundamental right of same-sex couples to marry and the power of the federal courts to address and vindicate that right.”
Haley and Wilson have vigorously fought same-sex marriage in the state. They argued that a state constitutional amendment passed by voters in 2006 banning same-sex marriage shielded their stance, despite the 4th Circuit decision that such bans are unconstitutional and the Supreme Court’s refusal in October to override that ruling.
Gergel issued a stay on the ruling, which will expire on Nov. 20 if it isn't appealed.
While the decision means South Carolina will likely join the growing number of states that allow same-sex unions — 33 as of yesterday, when the Supreme Court lifted a stay on gay marriage in Kansas, although that state’s governor and attorney general are contesting that decision — gay marriage advocates say the issue needs scrutiny from the U.S. Supreme Court.
In South Carolina, where history is long when it comes to rebuffing federal intervention, stubbornness marks both sides on the issue.
“We’ve applied for a marriage license six times now,” Greenville resident Ivy Hill said prior to Gergel’s ruling. “And obviously all six times, we’ve been denied … It sends a message that we are less than, that we are less than human and don’t deserve the same rights as our neighbors and our friends and our families.”
Same-sex marriage gained a legal toehold in the state in June 2013, when the Supreme Court struck down a key section of the Defense of Marriage Act on the grounds that it violated lesbians’ and gay men’s right to equal protection under the law. Since then, many federal district and appellate courts have struck down states’ gay marriage bans as unconstitutional.
Last week, however, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals bucked the trend, upholding gay marriage bans in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Kentucky. As a result, the issue is now virtually assured to go to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On November 13 2014 08:29 Introvert wrote: There are so many juicy bits from Gruber (not just this clip). But what is funny, yet sad, is "we wrote it to make sure it wasn't scored as a tax," then the administration argues to the court that it is a tax, and Roberts upholds it as a tax. lol. This also seems like yet another perfect example of leftists acting dishonestly "but hey, it's for the greater good!" They are far too willing to overstep or act without authority just because they like the results or need to "get things done." And this is why the Republicans should be wary when making deals.
Get of your high horse and open your eyes! 'Doing shady for the greater good' is not a lefties trait, the right is just as guilty of it. Who started illegal wars, supplied weapons to terrorist and 'tortured some folks' again?
There are no scandals, apparently, so long as the opposition isn't on the side of the angels.
But your elitist apologism aside, I did get a good chuckle at including "illegal wars" in that list. But even looking at all three together--If that's your most damning accusations against the other side, you've got less mud to sling that I thought.
You heard it here first: Going to war based on lies, destabilising an entire region and on top of that accumulating record debt is a "minor" scandal/issue.
On November 13 2014 08:29 Introvert wrote: There are so many juicy bits from Gruber (not just this clip). But what is funny, yet sad, is "we wrote it to make sure it wasn't scored as a tax," then the administration argues to the court that it is a tax, and Roberts upholds it as a tax. lol. This also seems like yet another perfect example of leftists acting dishonestly "but hey, it's for the greater good!" They are far too willing to overstep or act without authority just because they like the results or need to "get things done." And this is why the Republicans should be wary when making deals.
Get of your high horse and open your eyes! 'Doing shady for the greater good' is not a lefties trait, the right is just as guilty of it. Who started illegal wars, supplied weapons to terrorist and 'tortured some folks' again?
There are no scandals, apparently, so long as the opposition isn't on the side of the angels.
But your elitist apologism aside, I did get a good chuckle at including "illegal wars" in that list. But even looking at all three together--If that's your most damning accusations against the other side, you've got less mud to sling that I thought.
Who cares about the rule of law? Might makes right in the international realm. Law only matters when it comes to borders.
Appealing to fashionable modes international law is the province of smug moralizing busybodies and entirely separate from domestic laws passed by representatives of its citizens for their benefit. With the decline of education in this respect has come an indifference to whom is called to account for subverting the rule of law. I also rarely find people willing to discuss Vietnam to modern era authorizations of force compared to the previously traditional declarations of war on nations.
On November 13 2014 08:29 Introvert wrote: There are so many juicy bits from Gruber (not just this clip). But what is funny, yet sad, is "we wrote it to make sure it wasn't scored as a tax," then the administration argues to the court that it is a tax, and Roberts upholds it as a tax. lol. This also seems like yet another perfect example of leftists acting dishonestly "but hey, it's for the greater good!" They are far too willing to overstep or act without authority just because they like the results or need to "get things done." And this is why the Republicans should be wary when making deals.
Get of your high horse and open your eyes! 'Doing shady for the greater good' is not a lefties trait, the right is just as guilty of it. Who started illegal wars, supplied weapons to terrorist and 'tortured some folks' again?
There are no scandals, apparently, so long as the opposition isn't on the side of the angels.
But your elitist apologism aside, I did get a good chuckle at including "illegal wars" in that list. But even looking at all three together--If that's your most damning accusations against the other side, you've got less mud to sling that I thought.
You heard it here first: Going to war based on lies, destabilising an entire region and on top of that accumulating record debt is a "minor" scandal/issue.
What are you on about? I sincerely tried to find what you were trying to say in the quoted section, but could not.
On November 13 2014 08:29 Introvert wrote: There are so many juicy bits from Gruber (not just this clip). But what is funny, yet sad, is "we wrote it to make sure it wasn't scored as a tax," then the administration argues to the court that it is a tax, and Roberts upholds it as a tax. lol. This also seems like yet another perfect example of leftists acting dishonestly "but hey, it's for the greater good!" They are far too willing to overstep or act without authority just because they like the results or need to "get things done." And this is why the Republicans should be wary when making deals.
Get of your high horse and open your eyes! 'Doing shady for the greater good' is not a lefties trait, the right is just as guilty of it. Who started illegal wars, supplied weapons to terrorist and 'tortured some folks' again?
There are no scandals, apparently, so long as the opposition isn't on the side of the angels.
But your elitist apologism aside, I did get a good chuckle at including "illegal wars" in that list. But even looking at all three together--If that's your most damning accusations against the other side, you've got less mud to sling that I thought.
You heard it here first: Going to war based on lies, destabilising an entire region and on top of that accumulating record debt is a "minor" scandal/issue.
What are you on about? I sincerely tried to find what you were trying to say in the quoted section, but could not.
Your tendency to play down American foreign policy adventures that have cost hundreds of thousands of lives for no apparent reason as some kind of unlucky accident.
On November 13 2014 08:29 Introvert wrote: There are so many juicy bits from Gruber (not just this clip). But what is funny, yet sad, is "we wrote it to make sure it wasn't scored as a tax," then the administration argues to the court that it is a tax, and Roberts upholds it as a tax. lol. This also seems like yet another perfect example of leftists acting dishonestly "but hey, it's for the greater good!" They are far too willing to overstep or act without authority just because they like the results or need to "get things done." And this is why the Republicans should be wary when making deals.
Get of your high horse and open your eyes! 'Doing shady for the greater good' is not a lefties trait, the right is just as guilty of it. Who started illegal wars, supplied weapons to terrorist and 'tortured some folks' again?
There are no scandals, apparently, so long as the opposition isn't on the side of the angels.
But your elitist apologism aside, I did get a good chuckle at including "illegal wars" in that list. But even looking at all three together--If that's your most damning accusations against the other side, you've got less mud to sling that I thought.
You heard it here first: Going to war based on lies, destabilising an entire region and on top of that accumulating record debt is a "minor" scandal/issue.
What are you on about? I sincerely tried to find what you were trying to say in the quoted section, but could not.
Your tendency to play down American foreign policy adventures that have cost hundreds of thousands of lives for no apparent reason as some kind of unlucky accident.
Don't bother him with petty facts. American exceptionalism does not do well when confronted with them.
On November 13 2014 08:29 Introvert wrote: There are so many juicy bits from Gruber (not just this clip). But what is funny, yet sad, is "we wrote it to make sure it wasn't scored as a tax," then the administration argues to the court that it is a tax, and Roberts upholds it as a tax. lol. This also seems like yet another perfect example of leftists acting dishonestly "but hey, it's for the greater good!" They are far too willing to overstep or act without authority just because they like the results or need to "get things done." And this is why the Republicans should be wary when making deals.
Get of your high horse and open your eyes! 'Doing shady for the greater good' is not a lefties trait, the right is just as guilty of it. Who started illegal wars, supplied weapons to terrorist and 'tortured some folks' again?
There are no scandals, apparently, so long as the opposition isn't on the side of the angels.
But your elitist apologism aside, I did get a good chuckle at including "illegal wars" in that list. But even looking at all three together--If that's your most damning accusations against the other side, you've got less mud to sling that I thought.
Who cares about the rule of law? Might makes right in the international realm. Law only matters when it comes to borders.
Appealing to fashionable modes international law is the province of smug moralizing busybodies and entirely separate from domestic laws passed by representatives of its citizens for their benefit. With the decline of education in this respect has come an indifference to whom is called to account for subverting the rule of law. I also rarely find people willing to discuss Vietnam to modern era authorizations of force compared to the previously traditional declarations of war on nations.
What an absurdity. Some people called citizens protected by laws they didn't vote for, nor did they even vote for the voter who did, either through time or history. Some people called foreigners not protected by laws they too didn't vote for, unable to immigrate to places where they prefer the laws, and subject to the unlawful, murderous military actions of a rogue state.
EPT
