Again... why'd you vote for billionaires to run the country?

[OddBeMe]

[RavVid]

Well a billionaire has demonstrated he can achieve and most billionaires have got there via innovative thought.

Gov't bureaucracy runs on rules in minutia and big companies do too.

Overall change is good and the lightest of the dead hand of bureaucracy is best. Make no mistake, rules are put in place to prevent past problems from reoccurring so there is risk in removing rules but rules accrete. So I think there is value in questioning and re-evaluating bureaucratic regulations to achieve the same objective more efficiently.

[beefcakebradybatson]

Innovative thought, my a**. Besides, being a country's leader is FAR different from running a business in that unlike a CEO, a politician can't fire their compatriots.

[Sevenpointfive]

@beefcakebradybatson countries are absolutely a business and they must run accordingly.

[beefcakebradybatson]

@Sevenpointfive Countries, like businesses, have a budget, but can and do run debt for a variety of reasons, while a business can operate in the red for only so long before going belly-up.

[Sevenpointfive]

@beefcakebradybatson that's why countries like businesses take on investors to take on that debt. and we take on their debt and we are in no way in as much debt as we think we are, but we all owe each other money because we all act like credit card companies

[beefcakebradybatson]

@Sevenpointfive The U. S. National Debt is more than proportionately triple Canada's.

[RavVid]

@beefcakebradybatson I think you have to give Elon credit for being innovative - he has runs on the board. Space X versus NASA versus Boeing is a clear win to Space X against a gov't body and a bureaucratic company.

Yes in politics the chief politician is usually sacked by the worker bee pollies. I am surprised Trudeau is still hanging on in Canada. Even in the UK it is easier to sack a PM.

In my country he would have long gone and a female sacrifice installed as PM to face the inevitable electoral defeat. Having the party membership elect the leader is a bad idea. It slows down eliminating failed leaders.

[beefcakebradybatson]

Kim Campbell in the mid-nineties was our Liz Truss, a female PM for less than three months.

[beefcakebradybatson]

Stupidity and the Stockholm Syndrome i. e, the oppressed identifying with their oppressors.

[Apulu_backagain]

In today's politics, there are two choices.

Worse

More worse.

One of them just knows how to speak right words to appeal the mass and knows marketing and business and that's why they win. It's all a presentation, an empty can is the one which makes a lot of noise.

[RageBabe]

Although I am not in the United States, if I were, I would have voted for Trump because I believe he is the best candidate for the job, and I am delighted he won.

[FunkyMonkee]

I voted FOR you!

[RageBabe]

@FunkyMonkee Thanks, I voted for you too!

[OddBeMe]

You both are idiots

[FunkyMonkee]

"OddBeMe" What an appropriate name!!

[RageBabe]

@OddBeMe “Look, I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and crap out a smarter statement than that.”

[RageBabe]

@FunkyMonkee Right. 🤣

[WindAtMyBack]

The last round of deregulation saved the banking industry. Banks were in serious trouble before that.

As for the FDIC, they are not regulatory. They are insurance and voluntary. IF banks want the insurance, they do have to meet certain minimal requirements and get monitored. But I have to stress that it is voluntary.

Membership in the Federal Reserve is also voluntary.

[OddBeMe]

Seriously? That caused the fcking 2008 crash genius

[WindAtMyBack]

I'm not talking about 2008. I'm talking about the late 80s and early 90s. Traditional banks were having a hard time because they were overly regulated compared to other financial institutions. Before that, other institutions like savings banks, savings and loans, and credit unions outnumbered traditional banks by quite a bit. Now, it's then other way around because banks could finally be competitive.

You'd have a hard time pinning 2008 on bank deregulation. And none of the reports on what happened blame deregulation either.

[goaded]

You're joking. Deregulation is what allowed banks to gamble with everybody's money.

"The 1980s saw a move toward deregulation, soon followed by re-regulation in the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis and the Great Recession of the early 2000s.

... more than 4,300 bank mergers in the 1980s and more than 6,000 in the 1990s."

www.investopedia.com/.../...banking-regulation.asp

[WindAtMyBack]

@goaded

The DEMOCRATS pushed banks to loan money to lowish income borrowers. They wanted more "affordable housing". The Democrats in congress pushed for it and Clinton pushed for it.

It was the Democrats who wanted to gamble with other people's money. They wanted banks to increase the percentage of loans to lowish income people. In other words, they wanted banks to gamble by making loans to less qualified borrowers. Democrats pretend to help lower income people, but they make it worse. Sure, some lower income people were able to buy a house. Good for them, seriously. But others defaulted. That's to be expected when you push to increase the percentage of loans to lowish income people.

But none of that is about deregulation of banks.

A couple decades earlier...

"more than 4,300 bank mergers in the 1980s and more than 6,000 in the 1990s"

Of course they merged. When I was taking banking (class) in the mid-80s, banks were restricted to a single state. They could not cross state lines. So each of the 50 states had their own set of banks. They also had their own set of other types of thrifts. In smaller states especially this meant they were forced to be small. Can a bank forced to only do business in Wyoming really compete against BofA in California, or huge banks in other countries?

There were hundreds, maybe thousands, of banks in the US. When they could suddenly cross state lines, there were a lot of mergers. That's one of the things that kept them alive and made them competitive.

[WindAtMyBack]

Yea, there have been a lot of mergers. Is that so bad? To this day we still don't really have any big national banks. Even banks like BofA and Chase are not truly national. They have tried, but not successfully. We still have a VERY large number of banks in the US. We are not even close to anything monopolistic. It's still a highly competitive sector, maybe the most competitive sector out there.

[goaded]

So deregulation meant that bank failures weren't limited to individual states and created banks that were "too big to fail". Great.

[OddBeMe]

Are mergers bad? Yes when companies become so big they can't fail without taking down wall street. It's like America never learns. Oh I knew that already... I'll never learn

[WindAtMyBack]

@goaded

The largest banks were "too big to fail" long before they started crossing state lines. I don't agree with bailouts either, unless it's in the form of a loan which must be paid back, and the company vetted to make sure that can.

In a way, FDIC itself is a form of "Too big to fail". I've been through it before as both a customer with money in the bank, and as a shareholder. The FDIC just comes in and takes over. They are running the bank. They will actually pay out more than the insured amount to depositors. They'll try to find a buyer for the bank if they can, to recover their costs. If they can't find a buyer, they'll liquidate, which is what happened with the bank I was involved in. I got my deposited money, but I didn't get shit as a shareholder. Shareholders are last in line.

After mergers and growth, they can still fail, but deregulation and allowing them to cross state lines and grow kept them afloat.

There are still well over 4000 banks, plus several hundred credit unions.

[goaded]

"I didn't get shit as a shareholder. Shareholders are last in line." Good.

Remember: "The value of your investments can go down as well as up and you may get back less than you put in."

It was up to the shareholders to ensure the bank was well run, depositors should be entitled to assume their money is safe.

[WindAtMyBack]

@goaded

Of course it can go down. There are very few, if any, people who consistently make a profit in the stock market. Anyone who can't handle losses shouldn't be playing the game.

The thing that happened to that bank was that a high level government official leaked information that should not have been leaked. The bank was actually doing OK and addressing some of it's problems. But the leaked information caused a run on the bank. NO bank can survive a run. That's exactly why that information should not have been made public. But being a very high level official, he only got a chewing out when he should have gotten fired, or worse.

[goaded]

OK, without knowing the details, that was a stupid thing for them to do, but being "in" the government doesn't make you the government.

[FunkyMonkee]

Because, unlike the guy we have now, they know what the fuck they're doing AND will do LOADS of great things that will benefit THE WHOLE THE COUNTRY, NOT STUPID SHIT that ONLY benefits THEMSELVES!!!
OBVIOUSLY, YOU didn't vote FOR someone that could run the country, you voted AGAINST Donald Trump!! What a fucking STUPID way to vote!! You're the kind of stupid shit that'd vote for a fucking used tampon if that's all that was running against Trump!!

[OddBeMe]

And you think they'll change the economy that made them rich... why?

[RageBabe]

@FunkyMonkee Great answer, and thanks for making me LAUGH OUT LOUD! “You're the kind of stupid shit that'd vote for a fucking used tampon if that's all that was running against Trump.”

[FunkyMonkee]

@RageBabe Glad you liked it! I had a feeling you would!

[RageBabe]

@FunkyMonkee Yep, you know me inside out—literally.

[FunkyMonkee]

@RageBabe This, I do!!

[Avicenna]

Do you have an actual argument here about the merits of the proposed policy changes or are you just being a hater? And it's not as if the Democratic Party isn't owned by billionaires anyway, plus we have seen what an absolute disaster they are.

[OddBeMe]

Yes. Not installing oligarchs. Go.

[Avicenna]

Well, your party is run by oligarchs. I guess you're too blind to see that. It's quite evident in their policy as well as style.

Now that we've established that, how about you discuss why you oppose any change whatsoever to regulation of the banking industry, because that is the topic here, not whether Trump is a billionaire.

[OddBeMe]

My party hasn't ever placed billionaires in public office. Ever

[goaded]

Guess who's now openly talking about cuts to Social Security and Medicare? Guess who promised many times during the campaign that there wouldn't be any at all?

[Anonymous]

The nation is hog tied with regulations. The government has layer after layer of bureaucrats that need more and more regulation to justify their existence. Companies are discouraged to invest in America. The cost of permits and ancillary costs associated with greasing the wheels cause companies to go elsewhere.
Whole departments could be eliminated and nobody would miss them except the people that work there.
Also , don;t believe everything you read in the newspaper.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, Trump is awful. Yet he was still the better choice than the alternative, by a long shot.

People who voted for Trump were voting for something, not against something Democrats thought they could put forward a horrible candidate with no qualifications and she could easily beat the candidate they have been (and still are) trying to convince is a monster. Most people aren't buying it anymore. There are still some dumbass who are, but not nearly enough to elect Harris.

[OddBeMe]

That you think billionaires are a better choice is disturbing.

[FunkyMonkee]

HOW is he awful?

[FunkyMonkee]

What, Soros isn't a billionaire?
These particular billionaires know what the fuck they're doing!! OBVIOUSLY, YOU DON'T!!
The fact that YOU think Skamala Whore-ass was a better choice is INCREDIBLY disturbing!!!

[OddBeMe]

@FunkyMonkee... know what their doing to fill their coffers. You think they got to be billionaires by having empathy for poor fucks like you?

[midnightmoon05]

Don’t stay poor.
In this country … immigrants can became wealthy… don’t stay poor.

[Opinion Owner]

@OddBeMe What does being a billionaire have to do with a person's qualifications? Are you saying Harris should have wone because she's NOT a billionaire? The best candidate should be in office regardless of their income, no?

[FunkyMonkee]

They got to be billionaires by running businesses! CERTAINLY NOT by having empathy for poor fucks like YOU!!

[OddBeMe]

Billionaires qualifications isn't the issue. It's their desires. They played you and keep playing you. You'll support the end of govt protection of your bank assets and end your retirement guarantee for politics.

[FunkyMonkee]

And, you supported the complete destruction of the entire country because of a piece of cunt and a false claim that she's black!! And THAT makes YOU BETTER?

[Opinion Owner]

@OddBeMe The country, and the world for that matter, were far better off during the first Trump term than during the Biden / Harris term. Trump didn't do the horrible things you demwits always say he'll do, but he made us all better off. You need to stop getting your "news" from MSNBC.

[midnightmoon05]

Most didn’t vote for him due to his money.
I’m glad most Americans are still smart enough to pick trump…

[midnightmoon05]

And you know that.

[OddBeMe]

Oh not him. Trump isn't a billionaire. He surrounds himself with them like a mafioso

[midnightmoon05]

Nothing working with that.

[Sevenpointfive]

if these 4 years go as well as i think they will, elon will become the next president. i didn't like him when he first showed up, but i got to know him. same with vance. don't judge a douche by it's cover.

[Anonymous]

UMM, who else are you going to vote for? Harris was pretty well off too, and other then Elon Musk all the other rich people were backing Harris.

This just seems like such a small minded point of view.

[OddBeMe]

Who else? Not the people installing oligarchs you moron

[Opinion Owner]

Every person running wanted to do that though. Unless you wanted to write in Santa clause or whatever that is your only choice.

[OddBeMe]

No only one had a billionaire at his side

[Opinion Owner]

www.forbes.com/.../

[OddBeMe]

"813 billionaires have opted to "watch from the sidelines", 83 have publicly endorsed the vice president and 52 the former president."

Hardly a groundswell. But dems ain't campaigning with them. We're calling for their taxes to be raised.

[Opinion Owner]

Dems campaigned with tons of Celebs Like Opera (who is a billionaire). Plus Taxes have always been for the poor and middle class, they are not nor will they ever be for the rich. That's why under biden the IRS went after restaurant servers for audits. Not McDonalds or Coca cola

[OddBeMe]

and agian... not making them cabinet posts

[msc545]

The billionaires promised to evict all the immigrants and lower the price of gas by 10 cents a gallon and raise pay by a nickel an hour. Really worth it, right?

[RedInnocent69]

And all destroy the economy, like the last time the banks were deregulated. No one remember the housing crash of 2008

[Anonymous]

These are all clear signs of where the weaknesses are.. paying attention would be good. They honestly think they can do this out in the open. No consequences.

[ProbablyClueless]

... As opposed to a different group of billionaires on the other side of the aisle?

[OddBeMe]

Which billionaires are campaigning with dems... telling them to raise their own tax rates?

[ProbablyClueless]

These, among others. www.forbes.com/.../

[Dargil]

I got tired if Satanist lunatics. Didn't you?

[OddBeMe]

Satanists... what country you live in?

[Dargil]

The best one.

[OddBeMe]

Netherlands

[lightbulb27]

because kamala was an awful option with no vision.

[Anonymous]

who else do you want running the country? homeless drug addicts?

[Anonymous]

Depending on the industry perhaps because they clearly best know how.

[OddBeMe]

Best know how... to keep their money. You think they give a shit about you? Seriously?

[Opinion Owner]

Tell me @oddbeme why on earth are you soo eager to believe a charismatic politician cares about you? Their history of lying or failure?
In capitalism depending on industry people generally get rich by doing things well for people they actually want.

Its politics that leaders get rich by simply convening them to hand over 1 vote every 2-6 years where they then face no accountability of competition, and the ability to take what they want.

[OddBeMe]

What about kamala to raise taxes on the wealthy makes you think she's in their pocket?

I don't trust politicians. But trust them less if they pal around with billionaires. They are the reason for suffering

[Opinion Owner]

@oddbeme
I didn't imply she or any particular politician was or was not in anyone else's pocket. I simply suggested most of them were. Kamala can talk raising taxes on the "rich" all she likes but the historic evidence is the Rich don't pay taxes they just collect them.

That is because the "rich" are only wealthy because they own and operate machines doing work we value more than doing it ourselfs. As such you charge them more they simply change us more. Given the same goverment has largely outlawed thou regulations their competitors who would be paying the same taxes regardless. The rich simply collect goverment taxes.

If this economic model of royal monopolies were a valid one the brittish empire would still be around. In reality those monopolies become corrupt and dysfunctional over time without the competition. bring down your empire forced to rely upon them with them.

[seeyounexttuesday]

This from a guy who has no problem with George Soros influencing elections and Zuck colluding with the democrats in 2020.

[Anonymous]

Because it beat the mass genocide, wealth confiscations and selling kids to predators in bulk

[OddBeMe]

Show me where any of that is happening? Then tell me how why you think billionaires would care.

[Opinion Owner]

Billionaires are all about cashflow, if there are no customers they'd soon be broke plus they be stripped of their wealth to finance the new Epstein island and HQ of the DNC so they have to make out they care even if it's self serving, anything to purge the scourge of liberalism

[OddBeMe]

And? They'll still end fdic insured money and your retirement just to get a bit more

[Opinion Owner]

Trusting banks very liberal and retirement equally liberal

[MarjorieJ]

Kamala was the best they could scrape up.

[IamRight]

More agreeable than his opponents.

[OddBeMe]

It's disturbing you think that. If Kamala had bill gates this close to him I'd vote against her.