US Politics Mega-thread - Page 608

On November 06 2013 12:53 Adreme wrote:


I will openly admit I have no idea what that means.

On November 06 2013 12:55 DoubleReed wrote:


He's the evil villain from the TV show Gargoyles where even when his plans were foiled, they somehow benefited him some way. Often it was quite ridiculous.

You can even refer to this sort of plan as a Xanatos Gambit.

On November 06 2013 12:22 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Christie is giving Conservatives a lot of ammo if he does indeed run in 2016.

On November 06 2013 16:15 QuanticHawk wrote:

He'd have a good shot. The dude unfucked Jersey's economy, helped get the shore fixed up after the storm and he has support from red and blues alike. However, I think his big margin of victory had a lot to do with how much Buono sucked. Her whole platform was Christie wants to run for President... vote for me!!

IN DEFENCE OF BIG BANKS

My comment on the BBC's Newsnight programme that failures of big banks are very rare and that RBS was an "aberration" caused something of a storm. Some people said that they were "shocked and horrified" that I was "defending TBTF". Others complained about the behaviour of big banks in recent years. But I did not defend TBTF, and I did not defend the behaviour of banks. My comment was simply a statement of fact. Big banks fail very rarely. RBS's failure was the first failure of a big bank in the UK for over 100 years. ...

I repeat, small financial firms that are lightly regulated and supervised because they are thought not to be a danger are more often the cause of systemic crises than anything else. Particularly if they are involved in property lending, as they were in the UK's Secondary Banking Crisis, the US's Savings & Loan Crisis and the 2008 financial crisis. From Faisal Islam's book "The Default Line":

"What is the most dangerous toxic financial asset in the world?" This was the question put to me by the chief executive of a leading European bank. Anxious to display my superior knowledge of the darkest corners of the shadow banking system, I replied: "Credit default swaps on super-senior tranches of asset-backed, security-collateralised debt obligations". I thought I had come up with a pretty pithy answer.

"No," he gently chided me. "The most dangerous financial product in the world," he paused a moment for effect, "is the mortgage". ...

I emphatically do NOT defend "too big to fail". I want to see bank resolution regimes put in place that will allow even the largest banks to fail safely. And I have suggested ways of protecting the most important parts of the financial system - the payments system, the central bank and the funding network - from the consequences of large bank failure. I accept completely that the presence in a country of banks whose balance sheets dwarf GDP can present a considerable risk to its economy, as Iceland and Cyprus have amply demonstrated. But let's not forget that the history of financial crises is generally one of SMALL bank failure, and bailouts of small banks for systemic reasons are far more common than bailouts of large banks. We have become so mesmerised by the possibility of meltdown from giant bank failure that we do not see the real danger, which is that once again we allow the growth of an unregulated, unsupervised small bank sector which will in due course cause yet another "unforeseeable" financial crisis.

Administration Looks To Give Labor Unions Health Tax Relief

Weeks after denying labor's request to give union members access to health law subsidies, the Obama administration is signaling it intends to exempt some union plans from one of the law's substantial taxes.

Buried in rules issued last week is the disclosure that the administration will propose exempting "certain self-insured, self-administered plans" from the law's temporary reinsurance fee in 2015 and 2016.

That's a description that applies to many Taft-Hartley union plans acting as their own insurance company and claims processor, said Edward Fensholt, a senior vice president at Lockton Cos., a large insurance broker.

The fee starts at $63 per insurance plan member next year. Over three years starting in 2014, the tax has been expected to raise $25 billion. ...

On November 07 2013 02:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
And more changes to the ACA. Link

On November 07 2013 02:30 xDaunt wrote:

Brilliant idea. Give unions special exemptions for their healthcare plans while non-union workers remain fucked under the current regulations.

Someone asked a few days ago why my plan from my wife's employer was canceled. They didn't say specifically, but I guarantee that it was because of this tax.

On November 07 2013 02:36 Gorsameth wrote:

Ill admit it looks weird and fishy. Exceptions should be based on income for those getting insurance. Not on if its a union plan or not.

On November 07 2013 02:41 xDaunt wrote:


There's nothing weird or fishy about it. It's an obvious attempt to subsidize unions and their membership for political reasons.

On November 07 2013 03:05 IgnE wrote:


Don't worry xDaunt. Maybe your wife will help unionize her coworkers. You should be encouraging stronger unions. Capitalism will be healthier in the long run with a stronger labor force.

On November 07 2013 03:05 IgnE wrote:


Don't worry xDaunt. Maybe your wife will help unionize her coworkers. You should be encouraging stronger unions. Capitalism will be healthier in the long run with a stronger labor force.

On November 07 2013 03:05 IgnE wrote:


Don't worry xDaunt. Maybe your wife will help unionize her coworkers. You should be encouraging stronger unions. Capitalism will be healthier in the long run with a stronger labor force.

On November 07 2013 03:09 farvacola wrote:
Unions did work wonders for both the auto industry and government employees, only the throws of globalization brought out the worst in them. As for the Obamacare union exception, I'm rather used to being disappointed the day after elections.

On November 07 2013 03:37 WhiteDog wrote:

What do you mean ?