Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
I saw that one. Absolutely cringeworthy. I could barely watch the crazy lady. It's like listening to Grandpa Simpson when he's off his meds.
"Now let me tell you another story that is long, rambling, and has no point whatsoever..."
You have to also remember this isn't the first, or even fifth thing she's said that's so far beyond the pale that it seems genuinely insane, and she's still an official Trump spokesperson, and has not been reined in. When Donald says he'll get "the best people", this is the sort of person he means - the best at saying what Cheeto Jesus wants to hear even if it means being completely detached from reality.
Looking for a club in Brisbane, Australia? Come and enjoy a game and a beer at Pubhammer, our friendly club in a pub at the Junction pub in Annerley (opposite Ace Comics), Sunday nights from 6:30. All brisbanites welcome, don't wait, check out our Club Page on Facebook group for details or to organize a game. We play all sorts of board and war games, so hit us up if you're interested.
Pubhammer is Moving! Starting from the 25th of May we'll be gaming at The Junction pub (AKA The Muddy Farmer), opposite Ace Comics & Games in Annerley! Still Sunday nights from 6:30 in the Function room Come along and play Warmachine, 40k, boardgames or anything else!
Prestor Jon wrote: There's been ample speculation that Hillary made promises to Goldman Sachs and Wall St companies that she would support them and not pass legislation that cracks down on some of their problematic business practices. Bernie Sanders called for Clinton to release those transcripts so the public could see what Hillary was telling them that made it worth paying her hundreds of thousands of dollars.
And there it is again, 'there's been speculation'. For lots of people the simple act of someone accusing Clinton of something, of anything, is sufficient.
And this was always a very silly attack. Getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to give a speech sounds outrageous and so lots of people jumped to some weird, conspiratorial conclusions. But six figures for speeches is a common rate for high profile speakers, especially when dealing with industry sectors that are flush with cash.
Her husband made an average of more than $200k per speech to Wall St. OMG what could a former president be promising these people?! Nothing, obviously, he's a former president. That's just the going rate when event organisers can sell tables at those speeches for $30 grand.
Sarah Palin has taken $100k for speaking to Wall St. She not only has nothing to promise Wall St, she can barely even talk. But that's the going rate for high profile speakers.
Yes, lots of famous people get paid lots of money to make appearances and give speeches. However, having a person that is likely to be the next president of the US taking hundreds of thousands of dollars to give speeches to Goldman Sachs, the company whose employees go on to run the Treasury Dept and Federal Reserve does in fact, give the appearance of impropriety. Given that under Bill Clinton and Obama (and both Bush administrations too) those departments have been full of Goldman Sachs employees and that Hillary is more than likely going to make similar staffing decisions it's a well defined conflict of interest for her to take their money.
Again, that's the primary problem I have with Hillary's candidacy, she's just more of the same status quo problems that we're dealing with and she gives no signs of any willingness to change from standard political practices and thinking. Maybe we shouldn't have the same people using Goldman Sachs, the Treasury Dept and the Federal Reserve as a revolving door of jobs and appointments, the same people pushing the same policies and the same agendas but that won't happen under a Clinton presidency.
Gordon Shumway wrote: I find it odd that Hungary has such a (comparatively) high opinion of Putin.
Considering how Hungary is heading straight for authoritarianism at the moment, it's not very strange that they're enthusiastic about a leader that is seen as being strong and effective.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Prestor Jon wrote: There's been ample speculation that Hillary made promises to Goldman Sachs and Wall St companies that she would support them and not pass legislation that cracks down on some of their problematic business practices. Bernie Sanders called for Clinton to release those transcripts so the public could see what Hillary was telling them that made it worth paying her hundreds of thousands of dollars.
And there it is again, 'there's been speculation'. For lots of people the simple act of someone accusing Clinton of something, of anything, is sufficient.
And this was always a very silly attack. Getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to give a speech sounds outrageous and so lots of people jumped to some weird, conspiratorial conclusions. But six figures for speeches is a common rate for high profile speakers, especially when dealing with industry sectors that are flush with cash.
Her husband made an average of more than $200k per speech to Wall St. OMG what could a former president be promising these people?! Nothing, obviously, he's a former president. That's just the going rate when event organisers can sell tables at those speeches for $30 grand.
Sarah Palin has taken $100k for speaking to Wall St. She not only has nothing to promise Wall St, she can barely even talk. But that's the going rate for high profile speakers.
Yes, lots of famous people get paid lots of money to make appearances and give speeches. However, having a person that is likely to be the next president of the US taking hundreds of thousands of dollars to give speeches to Goldman Sachs, the company whose employees go on to run the Treasury Dept and Federal Reserve does in fact, give the appearance of impropriety. Given that under Bill Clinton and Obama (and both Bush administrations too) those departments have been full of Goldman Sachs employees and that Hillary is more than likely going to make similar staffing decisions it's a well defined conflict of interest for her to take their money.
Again, that's the primary problem I have with Hillary's candidacy, she's just more of the same status quo problems that we're dealing with and she gives no signs of any willingness to change from standard political practices and thinking. Maybe we shouldn't have the same people using Goldman Sachs, the Treasury Dept and the Federal Reserve as a revolving door of jobs and appointments, the same people pushing the same policies and the same agendas but that won't happen under a Clinton presidency.
Nice of Dakka to eat my reply.
There is no appearance of impropriety here unless you are looking for things to complain about for the sake of complaining about stuff.
First off, Clinton is a policy wonk. This is an in-demand skill and she is good at her job. She is paid appropriately for that. Goldman Sachs paid her the going rate for speakers of her knowledge/ability. I'm sure they pay others that amount. this is also the rate she gets paid speaking other places. The only thing that this proves is that Clinton is good at her job.
Goldman Sachs is a very successful company. I would think that anyone who can succeed there would do a good job working at the Treasury Department or the Federal Reserve. These types of positions utilize the same sort of skills and area of expertise and the people appointed there that used to work for Goldman Sachs obviously have those skills.
Personally, I want the government to be competent and have competent people working there. I don't think you can find competent people without ties to other organizations. You need to work in the field to understand the field. You can't work in the field without making ties to companies and people in the field.
Now, as is true with all hiring decisions in every business, you are more likely to hire someone who is recommended to you by someone who is also a skilled worker. This is because there is first hand experience of that person from someone you trust. That could explain why people from a certain company often end up in certain departments. Someone who you know does a bang-up job and trust used to work with this other person and the person you trust tells you that the other person does a bang up job...Are you more likely to hire the person that was recommended or are you going to roll the dice with an unknown who claims to do a bang-up job?
Prestor Jon wrote: There's been ample speculation that Hillary made promises to Goldman Sachs and Wall St companies that she would support them and not pass legislation that cracks down on some of their problematic business practices. Bernie Sanders called for Clinton to release those transcripts so the public could see what Hillary was telling them that made it worth paying her hundreds of thousands of dollars.
And there it is again, 'there's been speculation'. For lots of people the simple act of someone accusing Clinton of something, of anything, is sufficient.
And this was always a very silly attack. Getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to give a speech sounds outrageous and so lots of people jumped to some weird, conspiratorial conclusions. But six figures for speeches is a common rate for high profile speakers, especially when dealing with industry sectors that are flush with cash.
Her husband made an average of more than $200k per speech to Wall St. OMG what could a former president be promising these people?! Nothing, obviously, he's a former president. That's just the going rate when event organisers can sell tables at those speeches for $30 grand.
Sarah Palin has taken $100k for speaking to Wall St. She not only has nothing to promise Wall St, she can barely even talk. But that's the going rate for high profile speakers.
Yes, lots of famous people get paid lots of money to make appearances and give speeches. However, having a person that is likely to be the next president of the US taking hundreds of thousands of dollars to give speeches to Goldman Sachs, the company whose employees go on to run the Treasury Dept and Federal Reserve does in fact, give the appearance of impropriety. Given that under Bill Clinton and Obama (and both Bush administrations too) those departments have been full of Goldman Sachs employees and that Hillary is more than likely going to make similar staffing decisions it's a well defined conflict of interest for her to take their money.
Again, that's the primary problem I have with Hillary's candidacy, she's just more of the same status quo problems that we're dealing with and she gives no signs of any willingness to change from standard political practices and thinking. Maybe we shouldn't have the same people using Goldman Sachs, the Treasury Dept and the Federal Reserve as a revolving door of jobs and appointments, the same people pushing the same policies and the same agendas but that won't happen under a Clinton presidency.
Nice of Dakka to eat my reply.
There is no appearance of impropriety here unless you are looking for things to complain about for the sake of complaining about stuff.
First off, Clinton is a policy wonk. This is an in-demand skill and she is good at her job. She is paid appropriately for that. Goldman Sachs paid her the going rate for speakers of her knowledge/ability. I'm sure they pay others that amount. this is also the rate she gets paid speaking other places. The only thing that this proves is that Clinton is good at her job.
Goldman Sachs is a very successful company. I would think that anyone who can succeed there would do a good job working at the Treasury Department or the Federal Reserve. These types of positions utilize the same sort of skills and area of expertise and the people appointed there that used to work for Goldman Sachs obviously have those skills.
Personally, I want the government to be competent and have competent people working there. I don't think you can find competent people without ties to other organizations. You need to work in the field to understand the field. You can't work in the field without making ties to companies and people in the field.
Now, as is true with all hiring decisions in every business, you are more likely to hire someone who is recommended to you by someone who is also a skilled worker. This is because there is first hand experience of that person from someone you trust. That could explain why people from a certain company often end up in certain departments. Someone who you know does a bang-up job and trust used to work with this other person and the person you trust tells you that the other person does a bang up job...Are you more likely to hire the person that was recommended or are you going to roll the dice with an unknown who claims to do a bang-up job?
What makes you think that simply working for Goldman Sachs makes somebody qualified to run then national economy? The so called experts that were hired away from Goldman Sachs didn't do anything to avoid the financial meltdown in 2008 and Goldman Sachs helped cause the crisis and profited from it. Maybe we need to rethink the hiring process and the cozy relationship our govt has with that company.
What makes you think that simply working for Goldman Sachs makes somebody qualified to run then national economy? The so called experts that were hired away from Goldman Sachs didn't do anything to avoid the financial meltdown in 2008 and Goldman Sachs helped cause the crisis and profited from it. Maybe we need to rethink the hiring process and the cozy relationship our govt has with that company.
Are you suggesting that the federal government should have interfered with private businesses prior to the crash and brought in strict regulations which basically banned sup-prime lending, which is basically the only way it could have done anything to avoid that crash?
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Ouze wrote: Katrina Pierson seems like an ideal rep for Trump.
After the surge when al Qaeda was in ashes. Entering Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton — remember we weren’t even in Afghanistan by this time. Barack Obama went into Afghanistan creating another problem.
Half Trump's target demo won't know that's not true, 30% will believe that (again) it was "audio echoes" and they were misunderstood - again, even though this time that clearly wasn't the case - and the other 20% won't care what he says because both sides are bad.
Also, it looks like George Soros was hacked, again likely by Russia. Interesting seeing people in the comments cheer on a state-sponsored cyber attack on their own country, because that's somehow a win for their "team".
we deserve Trump
No. The buffoons who vote for him deserve Trump, the rest will just suffer him.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
They would have a better chance than the average person to understand what caused the crash and how to prevent it from happening in the future.
Combine with the fact that Democrats have a vested interest in making sure government is effective and works. Conservatives have a vested intetest in making sure government fails.
What makes you think that simply working for Goldman Sachs makes somebody qualified to run then national economy? The so called experts that were hired away from Goldman Sachs didn't do anything to avoid the financial meltdown in 2008 and Goldman Sachs helped cause the crisis and profited from it. Maybe we need to rethink the hiring process and the cozy relationship our govt has with that company.
Are you suggesting that the federal government should have interfered with private businesses prior to the crash and brought in strict regulations which basically banned sup-prime lending, which is basically the only way it could have done anything to avoid that crash?
Well, if Steagall-Glass hadn't been repealed, more interference may not even have been necessary.
And it was a Democrat (Clinton) who signed the repeal. Which gets us back to the concern about Wall Street and the financial sector influence in Washington.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/15 17:11:19
Combine with the fact that Democrats have a vested interest in making sure government is effective and works. Conservatives have a vested intetest in making sure government fails.
Combine with the fact that Democrats have a vested interest in making sure government is effective and works. Conservatives have a vested intetest in making sure government fails.
Clearly this is totes unbiased.
Coming from you?
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Combine with the fact that Democrats have a vested interest in making sure government is effective and works. Conservatives have a vested intetest in making sure government fails.
Combine with the fact that Democrats have a vested interest in making sure government is effective and works. Conservatives have a vested intetest in making sure government fails.
Clearly this is totes unbiased.
Coming from you?
Please, the Republicans have been campaigning since the 80's that government is bad and doesn't work...That means that they have a vested interest in seeing that it doesn't work. That should be self-evident.
Combine with the fact that Democrats have a vested interest in making sure government is effective and works. Conservatives have a vested intetest in making sure government fails.
Clearly this is totes unbiased.
Coming from you?
As a conservative responding to that post?
Yup.
Whembly, your complaining that someone is biased (and when did he say he wasn't?), when you are an extremely biased and partisan person.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Combine with the fact that Democrats have a vested interest in making sure government is effective and works. Conservatives have a vested intetest in making sure government fails.
Clearly this is totes unbiased.
Coming from you?
Please, the Republicans have been campaigning since the 80's that government is bad and doesn't work...That means that they have a vested interest in seeing that it doesn't work. That should be self-evident.
To be fair, in regards to the original quote, it's the Republicans who are on record as wanting to keep the government from working, not "conservatives".
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
BTW random question about USA president candinate votes. How do those in practice then work? People go to voting place and pick the member from the 2 groups they would like to be candinate? Or only from one group? In which case I would presume they need to register to one group and one only?
Basically wondering is it possible for say democrats to put in votes for opposite party member they think is LEAST likely to win against their candinate in the main vote.
Combine with the fact that Democrats have a vested interest in making sure government is effective and works. Conservatives have a vested intetest in making sure government fails.
Clearly this is totes unbiased.
Coming from you?
Please, the Republicans have been campaigning since the 80's that government is bad and doesn't work...That means that they have a vested interest in seeing that it doesn't work. That should be self-evident.
To be fair, in regards to the original quote, it's the Republicans who are on record as wanting to keep the government from working, not "conservatives".
I say conservatives because it includes people of Libertarian bent.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: BTW random question about USA president candinate votes. How do those in practice then work? People go to voting place and pick the member from the 2 groups they would like to be candinate? Or only from one group? In which case I would presume they need to register to one group and one only?
Basically wondering is it possible for say democrats to put in votes for opposite party member they think is LEAST likely to win against their candinate in the main vote.
You might be thinking of primaries...And how those work varies from state to state. The presidential election to determine the actual president (Not the candidates) you get one vote for Pres/Vice-Pres.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/15 18:28:52
skyth wrote: You might be thinking of primaries...And how those work varies from state to state. The presidential election to determine the actual president (Not the candidates) you get one vote for Pres/Vice-Pres.
Yeah specifically primaries. Obviously in the main thingie no point voting in "wrong" party but in primaries could somebody vote for both parties?
(for comparison in Finland there's no primaries so people simply vote their favourite candinate on first round. If nobody gains over 50% votes, likely with like dozen+ candinates, 2 best goes for 2nd round and repeat.)
It lighter, more hilarious news, Billy West has been recording and tweeting actual Trump quotes as legendary D.O.O.P Twenty-Five Star Major General Webelo Rear Admiral Commodore 64, the Velour Fog and the Man With No Name, Zapp Brannigan.
This one is probably the most Brannigan-esque thing his said:
You can find more on his Twitter page, they're worth a listen.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/15 19:21:18
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: It lighter, more hilarious news, Billy West has been recording and tweeting actual Trump quotes as legendary D.O.O.P Twenty-Five Star Major General Webelo General Rear Admiral Commodore 64, the Velour Fog and the Man With No Name, Zapp Brannigan.
This one is probably the most Brannigan-esque thing his said:
What makes you think that simply working for Goldman Sachs makes somebody qualified to run then national economy? The so called experts that were hired away from Goldman Sachs didn't do anything to avoid the financial meltdown in 2008 and Goldman Sachs helped cause the crisis and profited from it. Maybe we need to rethink the hiring process and the cozy relationship our govt has with that company.
Are you suggesting that the federal government should have interfered with private businesses prior to the crash and brought in strict regulations which basically banned sup-prime lending, which is basically the only way it could have done anything to avoid that crash?
Well, if Steagall-Glass hadn't been repealed, more interference may not even have been necessary.
And it was a Democrat (Clinton) who signed the repeal. Which gets us back to the concern about Wall Street and the financial sector influence in Washington.
Exactly, the relationship between Wall St investment banks and the Federal govt is way too incestuous. If the "experts" from Goldman Sachs that were appointed to run the Treasury and Federal reserve really were SMEs then why didn't they vehemently protest the repeal of Glass-Steagall? It couldn't possibly be because the repeal made it much easier for those banks to increase their business and profits could it?
More recently, if the "experts" with experience at Goldman Sachs understood complex financial structures and transactions like mortgage backed securities and derivatives then why did they let Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy up all those subprime and gimmicky mortgages that were certain to default? It couldn't possibly have anything to do with making sure that those bad mortgages that John and Jane Q Public were going to default on would get backed by the Federal govt and get the benefit of the govt's AAA rating applied to what were essentially junk bonds so that the supply of mortgage backed securities would continue and the banks could keep making money off of them. The experts in the govt bureaucracy would never do something short sighted that would give their former (and future) employers financial gain at the long term expense of the country would they?
skyth wrote: They would have a better chance than the average person to understand what caused the crash and how to prevent it from happening in the future.
Combine with the fact that Democrats have a vested interest in making sure government is effective and works. Conservatives have a vested intetest in making sure government fails.
Why construct the false binary choice that the only people that would be considered for running the Treasury or Federal Reserve would be a Goldman Sachs exec or a random average person? You don't have to work at Goldman Sachs to understand finance, finance law and investment banking.
Combine with the fact that Democrats have a vested interest in making sure government is effective and works. Conservatives have a vested intetest in making sure government fails.
Clearly this is totes unbiased.
Coming from you?
Please, the Republicans have been campaigning since the 80's that government is bad and doesn't work...That means that they have a vested interest in seeing that it doesn't work. That should be self-evident.
Please... the Republican has been campaigning on SMALLER GOVERNMENT... not that government is BAD.
Combine with the fact that Democrats have a vested interest in making sure government is effective and works. Conservatives have a vested intetest in making sure government fails.
Clearly this is totes unbiased.
Coming from you?
Please, the Republicans have been campaigning since the 80's that government is bad and doesn't work...That means that they have a vested interest in seeing that it doesn't work. That should be self-evident.
Please... the Republican has been campaigning on SMALLER GOVERNMENT... not that government is BAD.
But why does it want smaller government?
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
What makes you think that simply working for Goldman Sachs makes somebody qualified to run then national economy? The so called experts that were hired away from Goldman Sachs didn't do anything to avoid the financial meltdown in 2008 and Goldman Sachs helped cause the crisis and profited from it. Maybe we need to rethink the hiring process and the cozy relationship our govt has with that company.
Are you suggesting that the federal government should have interfered with private businesses prior to the crash and brought in strict regulations which basically banned sup-prime lending, which is basically the only way it could have done anything to avoid that crash?
Well, if Steagall-Glass hadn't been repealed, more interference may not even have been necessary.
And it was a Democrat (Clinton) who signed the repeal. Which gets us back to the concern about Wall Street and the financial sector influence in Washington.
Exactly, the relationship between Wall St investment banks and the Federal govt is way too incestuous. If the "experts" from Goldman Sachs that were appointed to run the Treasury and Federal reserve really were SMEs then why didn't they vehemently protest the repeal of Glass-Steagall? It couldn't possibly be because the repeal made it much easier for those banks to increase their business and profits could it?
More recently, if the "experts" with experience at Goldman Sachs understood complex financial structures and transactions like mortgage backed securities and derivatives then why did they let Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy up all those subprime and gimmicky mortgages that were certain to default? It couldn't possibly have anything to do with making sure that those bad mortgages that John and Jane Q Public were going to default on would get backed by the Federal govt and get the benefit of the govt's AAA rating applied to what were essentially junk bonds so that the supply of mortgage backed securities would continue and the banks could keep making money off of them. The experts in the govt bureaucracy would never do something short sighted that would give their former (and future) employers financial gain at the long term expense of the country would they?
skyth wrote: They would have a better chance than the average person to understand what caused the crash and how to prevent it from happening in the future.
Combine with the fact that Democrats have a vested interest in making sure government is effective and works. Conservatives have a vested intetest in making sure government fails.
Why construct the false binary choice that the only people that would be considered for running the Treasury or Federal Reserve would be a Goldman Sachs exec or a random average person? You don't have to work at Goldman Sachs to understand finance, finance law and investment banking.
Straw man right there. I did not present a binary choice. Just saying why it is logical that they would be moved into that position. I am just saying that they are well qualified for the position.
Combine with the fact that Democrats have a vested interest in making sure government is effective and works. Conservatives have a vested intetest in making sure government fails.
Clearly this is totes unbiased.
Coming from you?
Please, the Republicans have been campaigning since the 80's that government is bad and doesn't work...That means that they have a vested interest in seeing that it doesn't work. That should be self-evident.
Please... the Republican has been campaigning on SMALLER GOVERNMENT... not that government is BAD.
Combine with the fact that Democrats have a vested interest in making sure government is effective and works. Conservatives have a vested intetest in making sure government fails.
Clearly this is totes unbiased.
Coming from you?
Please, the Republicans have been campaigning since the 80's that government is bad and doesn't work...That means that they have a vested interest in seeing that it doesn't work. That should be self-evident.
Please... the Republican has been campaigning on SMALLER GOVERNMENT... not that government is BAD.
What makes you think that simply working for Goldman Sachs makes somebody qualified to run then national economy? The so called experts that were hired away from Goldman Sachs didn't do anything to avoid the financial meltdown in 2008 and Goldman Sachs helped cause the crisis and profited from it. Maybe we need to rethink the hiring process and the cozy relationship our govt has with that company.
Are you suggesting that the federal government should have interfered with private businesses prior to the crash and brought in strict regulations which basically banned sup-prime lending, which is basically the only way it could have done anything to avoid that crash?
Well, if Steagall-Glass hadn't been repealed, more interference may not even have been necessary.
And it was a Democrat (Clinton) who signed the repeal. Which gets us back to the concern about Wall Street and the financial sector influence in Washington.
Exactly, the relationship between Wall St investment banks and the Federal govt is way too incestuous. If the "experts" from Goldman Sachs that were appointed to run the Treasury and Federal reserve really were SMEs then why didn't they vehemently protest the repeal of Glass-Steagall? It couldn't possibly be because the repeal made it much easier for those banks to increase their business and profits could it?
More recently, if the "experts" with experience at Goldman Sachs understood complex financial structures and transactions like mortgage backed securities and derivatives then why did they let Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy up all those subprime and gimmicky mortgages that were certain to default? It couldn't possibly have anything to do with making sure that those bad mortgages that John and Jane Q Public were going to default on would get backed by the Federal govt and get the benefit of the govt's AAA rating applied to what were essentially junk bonds so that the supply of mortgage backed securities would continue and the banks could keep making money off of them. The experts in the govt bureaucracy would never do something short sighted that would give their former (and future) employers financial gain at the long term expense of the country would they?
skyth wrote: They would have a better chance than the average person to understand what caused the crash and how to prevent it from happening in the future.
Combine with the fact that Democrats have a vested interest in making sure government is effective and works. Conservatives have a vested intetest in making sure government fails.
Why construct the false binary choice that the only people that would be considered for running the Treasury or Federal Reserve would be a Goldman Sachs exec or a random average person? You don't have to work at Goldman Sachs to understand finance, finance law and investment banking.
Straw man right there. I did not present a binary choice. Just saying why it is logical that they would be moved into that position. I am just saying that they are well qualified for the position.
You say they're well qualified but then you compare them to an average person. Goldman Sachs isn't the only investment bank in the US and it's no the only source of people who are qualified as knowledgeable regarding finance, finance law and investment banking yet Goldman Sachs accounts for a very disproportionately high number of govt officials running the Treasury and Federal Reserve. You shrug off this amazing coincidence that all of the most qualified people to handle financial policy for multiple administrations spanning decades all come from the same company by saying that they're well qualified as if the govt couldn't find anyone not from Goldman Sachs to do the job competently.
Combine with the fact that Democrats have a vested interest in making sure government is effective and works. Conservatives have a vested intetest in making sure government fails.
Clearly this is totes unbiased.
Coming from you?
Please, the Republicans have been campaigning since the 80's that government is bad and doesn't work...That means that they have a vested interest in seeing that it doesn't work. That should be self-evident.
Please... the Republican has been campaigning on SMALLER GOVERNMENT... not that government is BAD.
Ironic when all RR and GWB did was the opposite
If either Party ever actually delivered on any of their campaign promises to solve problems it would then eliminate their ability to use those same problems as campaign platforms when running for re-election.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/15 20:17:16
If either Party ever actually delivered on any of their campaign promises to solve problems it would then eliminate their ability to use those same problems as campaign platforms when running for re-election.
This man would have delivered on his campaign promises. I am a believer.
Edit: Stupid quotes...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/15 20:21:44
You know that there have been 2 heads of Treasury and 2 Chairs of the Federal Reserve under the Obama administration, and none of those 4 people worked for Goldman Sachs, right? That's an actual question, because it seems to be a very common belief that Timothy Geithner worked for GS, and he did not.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/15 20:23:25
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Come along and play Warmachine, 40k, boardgames or anything else! 
