|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 19 2013 00:55 DoubleReed wrote: How would that solve our illegal immigration problem? Annex them and make them all American? legalize the fuck outta them
|
On October 19 2013 06:58 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2013 06:53 Sub40APM wrote:On October 19 2013 06:52 Falling wrote:On October 19 2013 06:04 Souma wrote:On October 19 2013 05:57 Mohdoo wrote:On October 19 2013 05:48 GreenHorizons wrote:I don't know what's funnier that Arnold Schwarzenegger is petitioning to to amend the constitution so he can run for president, or that I would be more likely to vote for him than any of the other potential Republican candidates to date... I would love to see him and Christie debating with the Tea Party loons... hahaha Source Is there anyone actually opposed to amending the constitution so he can run? I think its a really, really silly rule. It doesn't make any amount of practical sense. Am I missing something? I wouldn't be surprised if there was an actually legit reason for this, but I'm not seeing it right now. You'd be surprised... In fact, I wouldn't doubt that a majority of Americans do not want to amend that clause. Given how much weight was put on Obama the Kenyan, birth certificates long or short I would not be surprised that most would not want it changed. The entire controversy was predicated that being foreign born would be a bad thing. Could people's love for Arnie overcome their hatred for Obama? Doubt it. But considering how well the Republicans last president who was both governor of California and a former actor did for their party, maybe just maybe Even if there was a strict residency requirements, I just can not see it changing. The rule has been around for too long and I'm sure out of 300 million people, they can find someone else. The people in the GOP who had a problem with Obama's heritage didnt have a problem with it because he was merely a 'foreigner' Well that's true. Something about his uncle or father holding anti-American views and that Obama was going to intentionally tear America down from the inside, 5th column style. I can't remember who I got the flurry of PMs at the height of that controversy. But anyways, that part was mostly a joke. It might sound like an arbitrary rule, but I think you need to draw a line at some point of what does it mean to be an American citizen and be able to run for president rather than having hypothetical foreign celebrities parachuting into election cycles. Dalai Lama for president anyone? lol
Sure, but why your place of birth? Seems really arbitrary. How about nationality and living a minimum of 25 years in the US (last 25 years)?
Are children of military families living abroad on a US base considered to be born abroad? Same for diplomats and other US citizens abroad on US business?
|
US bases abroad are considered American soil.
|
On October 19 2013 08:39 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2013 06:58 Falling wrote:On October 19 2013 06:53 Sub40APM wrote:On October 19 2013 06:52 Falling wrote:On October 19 2013 06:04 Souma wrote:On October 19 2013 05:57 Mohdoo wrote:On October 19 2013 05:48 GreenHorizons wrote:I don't know what's funnier that Arnold Schwarzenegger is petitioning to to amend the constitution so he can run for president, or that I would be more likely to vote for him than any of the other potential Republican candidates to date... I would love to see him and Christie debating with the Tea Party loons... hahaha Source Is there anyone actually opposed to amending the constitution so he can run? I think its a really, really silly rule. It doesn't make any amount of practical sense. Am I missing something? I wouldn't be surprised if there was an actually legit reason for this, but I'm not seeing it right now. You'd be surprised... In fact, I wouldn't doubt that a majority of Americans do not want to amend that clause. Given how much weight was put on Obama the Kenyan, birth certificates long or short I would not be surprised that most would not want it changed. The entire controversy was predicated that being foreign born would be a bad thing. Could people's love for Arnie overcome their hatred for Obama? Doubt it. But considering how well the Republicans last president who was both governor of California and a former actor did for their party, maybe just maybe Even if there was a strict residency requirements, I just can not see it changing. The rule has been around for too long and I'm sure out of 300 million people, they can find someone else. The people in the GOP who had a problem with Obama's heritage didnt have a problem with it because he was merely a 'foreigner' Well that's true. Something about his uncle or father holding anti-American views and that Obama was going to intentionally tear America down from the inside, 5th column style. I can't remember who I got the flurry of PMs at the height of that controversy. But anyways, that part was mostly a joke. It might sound like an arbitrary rule, but I think you need to draw a line at some point of what does it mean to be an American citizen and be able to run for president rather than having hypothetical foreign celebrities parachuting into election cycles. Dalai Lama for president anyone? lol Sure, but why your place of birth? Seems really arbitrary. How about nationality and living a minimum of 25 years in the US (last 25 years)? Are children of military families living abroad on a US base considered to be born abroad? Same for diplomats and other US citizens abroad on US business?
I'm pretty sure there is a specific legislation for US officials who have to live and end up having children abroad. I'd be really surprised if there wasn't, anyway.
|
Only 19 percent of the American public trusts the federal government to do what's right, a seven point drop since January, according to a new Pew poll released Friday.
That measure is now equivalent to the level in August 2011, when the last debt ceiling debate rocked Washington.
Thirty percent are angry with the federal government, up four points since September, while twelve percent are content with the government.
A Gallup Poll released at the beginning of October found that 33 percent of Americans said that government dysfunction is the biggest problem in the nation, the highest percentage in a Gallup poll since 1939. Those surveyed placed government dysfunction above the economy, unemployment, the deficit and healthcare as the biggest problem plaguing the country.
The Pew poll, conducted Oct. 9-13, surveyed 1,504 adults via phone with a margin of error sampling of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points. The Gallup poll, conducted Oct. 3-6, surveyed 1,028 adults via telephone with a margin of error sampling of plus or minue 4 percentage points.
Source
|
On October 19 2013 09:28 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2013 08:39 Acrofales wrote:On October 19 2013 06:58 Falling wrote:On October 19 2013 06:53 Sub40APM wrote:On October 19 2013 06:52 Falling wrote:On October 19 2013 06:04 Souma wrote:On October 19 2013 05:57 Mohdoo wrote:On October 19 2013 05:48 GreenHorizons wrote:I don't know what's funnier that Arnold Schwarzenegger is petitioning to to amend the constitution so he can run for president, or that I would be more likely to vote for him than any of the other potential Republican candidates to date... I would love to see him and Christie debating with the Tea Party loons... hahaha Source Is there anyone actually opposed to amending the constitution so he can run? I think its a really, really silly rule. It doesn't make any amount of practical sense. Am I missing something? I wouldn't be surprised if there was an actually legit reason for this, but I'm not seeing it right now. You'd be surprised... In fact, I wouldn't doubt that a majority of Americans do not want to amend that clause. Given how much weight was put on Obama the Kenyan, birth certificates long or short I would not be surprised that most would not want it changed. The entire controversy was predicated that being foreign born would be a bad thing. Could people's love for Arnie overcome their hatred for Obama? Doubt it. But considering how well the Republicans last president who was both governor of California and a former actor did for their party, maybe just maybe Even if there was a strict residency requirements, I just can not see it changing. The rule has been around for too long and I'm sure out of 300 million people, they can find someone else. The people in the GOP who had a problem with Obama's heritage didnt have a problem with it because he was merely a 'foreigner' Well that's true. Something about his uncle or father holding anti-American views and that Obama was going to intentionally tear America down from the inside, 5th column style. I can't remember who I got the flurry of PMs at the height of that controversy. But anyways, that part was mostly a joke. It might sound like an arbitrary rule, but I think you need to draw a line at some point of what does it mean to be an American citizen and be able to run for president rather than having hypothetical foreign celebrities parachuting into election cycles. Dalai Lama for president anyone? lol Sure, but why your place of birth? Seems really arbitrary. How about nationality and living a minimum of 25 years in the US (last 25 years)? Are children of military families living abroad on a US base considered to be born abroad? Same for diplomats and other US citizens abroad on US business? I'm pretty sure there is a specific legislation for US officials who have to live and end up having children abroad. I'd be really surprised if there wasn't, anyway.
Yes, John McCain was born in Panama, but on a U.S. Military Base, and he was considered eligible. Honestly, the definition isn't all that clear-cut yet. I've heard it argued that Ted Cruz would arguably be eligible even though he was born in Canada, due to one of his parents being American. It's really about the definition of "natural-born American".
|
On October 19 2013 09:52 Funnytoss wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2013 09:28 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 19 2013 08:39 Acrofales wrote:On October 19 2013 06:58 Falling wrote:On October 19 2013 06:53 Sub40APM wrote:On October 19 2013 06:52 Falling wrote:On October 19 2013 06:04 Souma wrote:On October 19 2013 05:57 Mohdoo wrote:On October 19 2013 05:48 GreenHorizons wrote:I don't know what's funnier that Arnold Schwarzenegger is petitioning to to amend the constitution so he can run for president, or that I would be more likely to vote for him than any of the other potential Republican candidates to date... I would love to see him and Christie debating with the Tea Party loons... hahaha Source Is there anyone actually opposed to amending the constitution so he can run? I think its a really, really silly rule. It doesn't make any amount of practical sense. Am I missing something? I wouldn't be surprised if there was an actually legit reason for this, but I'm not seeing it right now. You'd be surprised... In fact, I wouldn't doubt that a majority of Americans do not want to amend that clause. Given how much weight was put on Obama the Kenyan, birth certificates long or short I would not be surprised that most would not want it changed. The entire controversy was predicated that being foreign born would be a bad thing. Could people's love for Arnie overcome their hatred for Obama? Doubt it. But considering how well the Republicans last president who was both governor of California and a former actor did for their party, maybe just maybe Even if there was a strict residency requirements, I just can not see it changing. The rule has been around for too long and I'm sure out of 300 million people, they can find someone else. The people in the GOP who had a problem with Obama's heritage didnt have a problem with it because he was merely a 'foreigner' Well that's true. Something about his uncle or father holding anti-American views and that Obama was going to intentionally tear America down from the inside, 5th column style. I can't remember who I got the flurry of PMs at the height of that controversy. But anyways, that part was mostly a joke. It might sound like an arbitrary rule, but I think you need to draw a line at some point of what does it mean to be an American citizen and be able to run for president rather than having hypothetical foreign celebrities parachuting into election cycles. Dalai Lama for president anyone? lol Sure, but why your place of birth? Seems really arbitrary. How about nationality and living a minimum of 25 years in the US (last 25 years)? Are children of military families living abroad on a US base considered to be born abroad? Same for diplomats and other US citizens abroad on US business? I'm pretty sure there is a specific legislation for US officials who have to live and end up having children abroad. I'd be really surprised if there wasn't, anyway. Yes, John McCain was born in Panama, but on a U.S. Military Base, and he was considered eligible. Honestly, the definition isn't all that clear-cut yet. I've heard it argued that Ted Cruz would arguably be eligible even though he was born in Canada, due to one of his parents being American. It's really about the definition of "natural-born American".
I think natural born is generally taken to be that you were born a US citizen as opposed to a naturalized citizen.
|
As part of its state-by-state effort to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, a group backed by billionaire conservative benefactors Charles and David Koch is going after a Republican lawmaker in Virginia who has signaled an openness to the law's Medicaid expansion.
An article published Saturday in The New York Times details how the conservative advocacy group Americans for Prosperity is employing a grassroots campaign to pressure state lawmakers to reject the Medicaid expansion under the health care law.
The group is currently going all out in Virginia, where this year's gubernatorial race pits a Democrat who favors expansion (Terry McAuliffe) against a Republican who opposes (Ken Cuccinelli). It's also targeting Republican state Sen. Emmett W. Hanger Jr., who is considering signing off on the expansion.
“This has been one of those trench warfare kind of efforts for a year now, and I think it is one of those hidden stories of the whole fight against Obamacare,” Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity, told the Times. “It’s not flashy; it’s just in a whole bunch of state capitals and in the districts of a whole lot of state legislators, but it’s such a crucial aspect of the overall long-term effort to roll back Obamacare.”
Source
|
On October 19 2013 09:59 DeltaX wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2013 09:52 Funnytoss wrote:On October 19 2013 09:28 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 19 2013 08:39 Acrofales wrote:On October 19 2013 06:58 Falling wrote:On October 19 2013 06:53 Sub40APM wrote:On October 19 2013 06:52 Falling wrote:On October 19 2013 06:04 Souma wrote:On October 19 2013 05:57 Mohdoo wrote:On October 19 2013 05:48 GreenHorizons wrote:I don't know what's funnier that Arnold Schwarzenegger is petitioning to to amend the constitution so he can run for president, or that I would be more likely to vote for him than any of the other potential Republican candidates to date... I would love to see him and Christie debating with the Tea Party loons... hahaha Source Is there anyone actually opposed to amending the constitution so he can run? I think its a really, really silly rule. It doesn't make any amount of practical sense. Am I missing something? I wouldn't be surprised if there was an actually legit reason for this, but I'm not seeing it right now. You'd be surprised... In fact, I wouldn't doubt that a majority of Americans do not want to amend that clause. Given how much weight was put on Obama the Kenyan, birth certificates long or short I would not be surprised that most would not want it changed. The entire controversy was predicated that being foreign born would be a bad thing. Could people's love for Arnie overcome their hatred for Obama? Doubt it. But considering how well the Republicans last president who was both governor of California and a former actor did for their party, maybe just maybe Even if there was a strict residency requirements, I just can not see it changing. The rule has been around for too long and I'm sure out of 300 million people, they can find someone else. The people in the GOP who had a problem with Obama's heritage didnt have a problem with it because he was merely a 'foreigner' Well that's true. Something about his uncle or father holding anti-American views and that Obama was going to intentionally tear America down from the inside, 5th column style. I can't remember who I got the flurry of PMs at the height of that controversy. But anyways, that part was mostly a joke. It might sound like an arbitrary rule, but I think you need to draw a line at some point of what does it mean to be an American citizen and be able to run for president rather than having hypothetical foreign celebrities parachuting into election cycles. Dalai Lama for president anyone? lol Sure, but why your place of birth? Seems really arbitrary. How about nationality and living a minimum of 25 years in the US (last 25 years)? Are children of military families living abroad on a US base considered to be born abroad? Same for diplomats and other US citizens abroad on US business? I'm pretty sure there is a specific legislation for US officials who have to live and end up having children abroad. I'd be really surprised if there wasn't, anyway. Yes, John McCain was born in Panama, but on a U.S. Military Base, and he was considered eligible. Honestly, the definition isn't all that clear-cut yet. I've heard it argued that Ted Cruz would arguably be eligible even though he was born in Canada, due to one of his parents being American. It's really about the definition of "natural-born American". I think natural born is generally taken to be that you were born a US citizen as opposed to a naturalized citizen. This is how it's treated under the law, afaik.
|
On October 20 2013 03:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +As part of its state-by-state effort to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, a group backed by billionaire conservative benefactors Charles and David Koch is going after a Republican lawmaker in Virginia who has signaled an openness to the law's Medicaid expansion.
An article published Saturday in The New York Times details how the conservative advocacy group Americans for Prosperity is employing a grassroots campaign to pressure state lawmakers to reject the Medicaid expansion under the health care law.
The group is currently going all out in Virginia, where this year's gubernatorial race pits a Democrat who favors expansion (Terry McAuliffe) against a Republican who opposes (Ken Cuccinelli). It's also targeting Republican state Sen. Emmett W. Hanger Jr., who is considering signing off on the expansion.
“This has been one of those trench warfare kind of efforts for a year now, and I think it is one of those hidden stories of the whole fight against Obamacare,” Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity, told the Times. “It’s not flashy; it’s just in a whole bunch of state capitals and in the districts of a whole lot of state legislators, but it’s such a crucial aspect of the overall long-term effort to roll back Obamacare.” Source I love how the "old white bastards", aka Koch brothers are acting! They are a good indicator whats wrong with some old rich folks.
|
On October 20 2013 04:23 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2013 09:59 DeltaX wrote:On October 19 2013 09:52 Funnytoss wrote:On October 19 2013 09:28 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 19 2013 08:39 Acrofales wrote:On October 19 2013 06:58 Falling wrote:On October 19 2013 06:53 Sub40APM wrote:On October 19 2013 06:52 Falling wrote:On October 19 2013 06:04 Souma wrote:On October 19 2013 05:57 Mohdoo wrote: [quote]
Is there anyone actually opposed to amending the constitution so he can run? I think its a really, really silly rule. It doesn't make any amount of practical sense. Am I missing something? I wouldn't be surprised if there was an actually legit reason for this, but I'm not seeing it right now. You'd be surprised... In fact, I wouldn't doubt that a majority of Americans do not want to amend that clause. Given how much weight was put on Obama the Kenyan, birth certificates long or short I would not be surprised that most would not want it changed. The entire controversy was predicated that being foreign born would be a bad thing. Could people's love for Arnie overcome their hatred for Obama? Doubt it. But considering how well the Republicans last president who was both governor of California and a former actor did for their party, maybe just maybe Even if there was a strict residency requirements, I just can not see it changing. The rule has been around for too long and I'm sure out of 300 million people, they can find someone else. The people in the GOP who had a problem with Obama's heritage didnt have a problem with it because he was merely a 'foreigner' Well that's true. Something about his uncle or father holding anti-American views and that Obama was going to intentionally tear America down from the inside, 5th column style. I can't remember who I got the flurry of PMs at the height of that controversy. But anyways, that part was mostly a joke. It might sound like an arbitrary rule, but I think you need to draw a line at some point of what does it mean to be an American citizen and be able to run for president rather than having hypothetical foreign celebrities parachuting into election cycles. Dalai Lama for president anyone? lol Sure, but why your place of birth? Seems really arbitrary. How about nationality and living a minimum of 25 years in the US (last 25 years)? Are children of military families living abroad on a US base considered to be born abroad? Same for diplomats and other US citizens abroad on US business? I'm pretty sure there is a specific legislation for US officials who have to live and end up having children abroad. I'd be really surprised if there wasn't, anyway. Yes, John McCain was born in Panama, but on a U.S. Military Base, and he was considered eligible. Honestly, the definition isn't all that clear-cut yet. I've heard it argued that Ted Cruz would arguably be eligible even though he was born in Canada, due to one of his parents being American. It's really about the definition of "natural-born American". I think natural born is generally taken to be that you were born a US citizen as opposed to a naturalized citizen. This is how it's treated under the law, afaik.
I'm really hoping Cruz runs so people like Orly Taitz has anther target to troll.
Of course, if the Birthers decide to keep quiet on Cruz, then everyone would know why they really targetted Obama.
|
Someone needs to start the Get RID o' T campaign. Get Republicans, Independents, Democrats opposing Tea Party campaign.
Now that would make the news more interesting.
|
On October 20 2013 06:58 Dimagus wrote: Someone needs to start the Get RID o' T campaign. Get Republicans, Independents, Democrats opposing Tea Party campaign.
Now that would make the news more interesting. I really wish that were an option in my area. Sadly, my representative(s) were all Tea Party approved incumbents. In other words, my district(s) aligned with the Tea Party long before it existed in the first place.
|
On October 19 2013 09:46 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Only 19 percent of the American public trusts the federal government to do what's right, a seven point drop since January, according to a new Pew poll released Friday.
That measure is now equivalent to the level in August 2011, when the last debt ceiling debate rocked Washington.
Thirty percent are angry with the federal government, up four points since September, while twelve percent are content with the government.
A Gallup Poll released at the beginning of October found that 33 percent of Americans said that government dysfunction is the biggest problem in the nation, the highest percentage in a Gallup poll since 1939. Those surveyed placed government dysfunction above the economy, unemployment, the deficit and healthcare as the biggest problem plaguing the country.
The Pew poll, conducted Oct. 9-13, surveyed 1,504 adults via phone with a margin of error sampling of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points. The Gallup poll, conducted Oct. 3-6, surveyed 1,028 adults via telephone with a margin of error sampling of plus or minue 4 percentage points. Source
You'd think with numbers that low people would actually want to do something about it.
|
On October 20 2013 07:45 FeUerFlieGe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2013 09:46 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Only 19 percent of the American public trusts the federal government to do what's right, a seven point drop since January, according to a new Pew poll released Friday.
That measure is now equivalent to the level in August 2011, when the last debt ceiling debate rocked Washington.
Thirty percent are angry with the federal government, up four points since September, while twelve percent are content with the government.
A Gallup Poll released at the beginning of October found that 33 percent of Americans said that government dysfunction is the biggest problem in the nation, the highest percentage in a Gallup poll since 1939. Those surveyed placed government dysfunction above the economy, unemployment, the deficit and healthcare as the biggest problem plaguing the country.
The Pew poll, conducted Oct. 9-13, surveyed 1,504 adults via phone with a margin of error sampling of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points. The Gallup poll, conducted Oct. 3-6, surveyed 1,028 adults via telephone with a margin of error sampling of plus or minue 4 percentage points. Source You'd think with numbers that low people would actually want to do something about it.
You really have to understand where the sentiment is coming from. I overhear people talk politics in the office and around school, and a lot of people's opinions are shaped by half-listening to 20-30 second sound clips on the news. They know the government shut down, they know it's Congress' fault, but they're confused about how it started and why. Had a coworker mix up Obama's and Boehner's statements, thinking that Obama had asked for "unconditional surrender," Thus, he (and others) sit around and wrongly think that everything is broken and are discouraged from participating in the process. They don't want to take the time to understand whether it was one of their representatives or not.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
JPMorgan Chase has reached a tentative agreement with the Justice Department to pay a record $13 billion to settle civil investigations into faulty mortgage securities the bank sold to investors in the lead up to the financial crisis, according to two people familiar with the negotiations. The tentative deal was reached Friday night in a call involving Attorney General Eric Holder and JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, one of the sources said. It would be the largest settlement ever between Justice and a single company. The package is expected to include $9 billion in penalties paid to the government and $4 billion in relief for consumers. The deal would mark a victory for the Obama administration, which has been criticized for not being more agressive in pressing cases against Wall Street firms following the 2008 financial crisis. ... Over the past year JPMorgan has faced a series of investigations that dented the reputation of both the bank and Dimon, who won plaudits following the financial crisis for his risk management skills. In recent weeks, the bank has struck deals with various regulators intended to put an end to the firm’s legal woes. Last month the bank agreed to a $920 million settlement with regulators over the London Whale trading debacle, along with separate deals over credit card and debt collection problems, as part of an effort to move past its legal woes. JPMorgan’s legal troubles caused it to this month report its first quarterly loss since Dimon became CEO in 2005. The bank reported that it lost $380 million in the third quarter after spending about $9.3 billion on legal expenses. It is now reserving roughly $23 billion for litigation costs. Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/jpmorgan-department-of-justice-settlement-98559.html?hp=f1
|
On October 20 2013 09:52 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +JPMorgan Chase has reached a tentative agreement with the Justice Department to pay a record $13 billion to settle civil investigations into faulty mortgage securities the bank sold to investors in the lead up to the financial crisis, according to two people familiar with the negotiations. The tentative deal was reached Friday night in a call involving Attorney General Eric Holder and JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, one of the sources said. It would be the largest settlement ever between Justice and a single company. The package is expected to include $9 billion in penalties paid to the government and $4 billion in relief for consumers. The deal would mark a victory for the Obama administration, which has been criticized for not being more agressive in pressing cases against Wall Street firms following the 2008 financial crisis. ... Over the past year JPMorgan has faced a series of investigations that dented the reputation of both the bank and Dimon, who won plaudits following the financial crisis for his risk management skills. In recent weeks, the bank has struck deals with various regulators intended to put an end to the firm’s legal woes. Last month the bank agreed to a $920 million settlement with regulators over the London Whale trading debacle, along with separate deals over credit card and debt collection problems, as part of an effort to move past its legal woes. JPMorgan’s legal troubles caused it to this month report its first quarterly loss since Dimon became CEO in 2005. The bank reported that it lost $380 million in the third quarter after spending about $9.3 billion on legal expenses. It is now reserving roughly $23 billion for litigation costs. Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/jpmorgan-department-of-justice-settlement-98559.html?hp=f1
To put that in perspective, $13 billion will cover about half of what was wasted by the government shutdown.
|
On October 20 2013 10:02 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2013 09:52 Souma wrote:JPMorgan Chase has reached a tentative agreement with the Justice Department to pay a record $13 billion to settle civil investigations into faulty mortgage securities the bank sold to investors in the lead up to the financial crisis, according to two people familiar with the negotiations. The tentative deal was reached Friday night in a call involving Attorney General Eric Holder and JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, one of the sources said. It would be the largest settlement ever between Justice and a single company. The package is expected to include $9 billion in penalties paid to the government and $4 billion in relief for consumers. The deal would mark a victory for the Obama administration, which has been criticized for not being more agressive in pressing cases against Wall Street firms following the 2008 financial crisis. ... Over the past year JPMorgan has faced a series of investigations that dented the reputation of both the bank and Dimon, who won plaudits following the financial crisis for his risk management skills. In recent weeks, the bank has struck deals with various regulators intended to put an end to the firm’s legal woes. Last month the bank agreed to a $920 million settlement with regulators over the London Whale trading debacle, along with separate deals over credit card and debt collection problems, as part of an effort to move past its legal woes. JPMorgan’s legal troubles caused it to this month report its first quarterly loss since Dimon became CEO in 2005. The bank reported that it lost $380 million in the third quarter after spending about $9.3 billion on legal expenses. It is now reserving roughly $23 billion for litigation costs. Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/jpmorgan-department-of-justice-settlement-98559.html?hp=f1 To put that in perspective, $13 billion will cover about half of what was wasted by the government shutdown.
To put that in further perspective, JP Morgan had (according to wiki) a net profit of 21.30 billion in 2012.
edit: corrected
|
On October 20 2013 10:26 blomsterjohn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2013 10:02 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 20 2013 09:52 Souma wrote:JPMorgan Chase has reached a tentative agreement with the Justice Department to pay a record $13 billion to settle civil investigations into faulty mortgage securities the bank sold to investors in the lead up to the financial crisis, according to two people familiar with the negotiations. The tentative deal was reached Friday night in a call involving Attorney General Eric Holder and JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, one of the sources said. It would be the largest settlement ever between Justice and a single company. The package is expected to include $9 billion in penalties paid to the government and $4 billion in relief for consumers. The deal would mark a victory for the Obama administration, which has been criticized for not being more agressive in pressing cases against Wall Street firms following the 2008 financial crisis. ... Over the past year JPMorgan has faced a series of investigations that dented the reputation of both the bank and Dimon, who won plaudits following the financial crisis for his risk management skills. In recent weeks, the bank has struck deals with various regulators intended to put an end to the firm’s legal woes. Last month the bank agreed to a $920 million settlement with regulators over the London Whale trading debacle, along with separate deals over credit card and debt collection problems, as part of an effort to move past its legal woes. JPMorgan’s legal troubles caused it to this month report its first quarterly loss since Dimon became CEO in 2005. The bank reported that it lost $380 million in the third quarter after spending about $9.3 billion on legal expenses. It is now reserving roughly $23 billion for litigation costs. Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/jpmorgan-department-of-justice-settlement-98559.html?hp=f1 To put that in perspective, $13 billion will cover about half of what was wasted by the government shutdown. To put that in further perspective, JP Morgan had (according to wiki) a net income of 21.30 billion in 2012.
Profit, not income, it had ~100 billion in income.
|
PORTLAND, Maine (AP) -- Advocates of recreational marijuana use are looking to an upcoming vote in Maine as an indicator of whether the East Coast is ready to follow in the footsteps of Colorado and Washington by legalizing cannabis.
Voters in Portland are being asked whether they want to make it legal for adults 21 and over to possess -- but not purchase or sell -- up to 2.5 ounces of pot. The Nov. 5 vote is being eyed nationally as momentum grows in favor of legalizing marijuana use.
The Marijuana Policy Project, a Washington, D.C.-based group that supports legalization, says it targeted Portland because it's Maine's largest city and because, unlike many other states and cities, it has an initiative process to get the referendum on the ballot. Organizers hope passage of the Portland initiative could spur similar results in other liberal Northeast cities.
"I think there's national implications, keeping the momentum that Washington and Colorado started last November in ending marijuana prohibition," said David Boyer, the organization's political director in Maine. "This is just the next domino."
There's no organized opposition to the referendum, but law enforcement and substance abuse groups are speaking out against it.
Source
|
|
|
|