Joe, some questions.
1) GW Bush Jr. only took 2% in PAC moneys. Therefor, according to you, he's no different than Obama. Is that correct?
No. I have do idea what makes you think such a thing.
2) When the Koch brothers give "Individual" donations, this is, according to you, untainted money. No influence peddling there. Is that correct? Because if you agree that this is the case, then no I can not convince you that the MILLIONS of dollars Obama got in individual "Donations" from "Employee's" at GoldmanSux is influence peddling. Apparently you live in La La land where when rich powerful bankers give money directly to Obama it has no effect on his actions.
No again, you are mixing and matching and over simplifying the issues. Individual contributions to a presidential candidate, which are limited by law, are very different from contributions to other campaign organizations like 527's and the many other political organizations created by people like the Koch brothers.
And if you had been paying attention Michael you would know that I am opposed to the current system of campaign finance. I think campaigns for public office should be funded only from public coffers not private pockets as is currently the case.
In any case, you claims that Obama has been bought out by Wall Street is just not borne out by the facts. His public actions and policy have been anything but bank friendly.
3) Do you agree that Obama took more money from WallStreet than John McCain? Please see the Stats before answering.
Obama and McCain both took money from employees of Wall Street firms. Is there a point here somewhere? Do you have any proof of wrong doing by either Obama or McCain?
4) Your use of the word throwback is meaningless emotional driven drivel
LOL, no it is fact. What Paul is advocating - we have been there and done that. It didn't work. That is why we are not doing it now. And that is why you don't find a lot of educated folks backing Paul.
5) Does Dodd–Frank Act make it so that NO BANKS ARE TOO BIG TO FAIL? Does it Joe? I don't think it does. As a matter of fact, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) — also known as the "top Wall Street lobby" in Washington — has expressed TOTAL support for the law, and has urged Congress not to change or repeal it. Want to know why Joe? Why do you think that's be the case. You said the Banks were shaking in their boots. Well, here's evidence that is not the case. Exactly the opposite. They LOVE this Act. So, the evidence is that they did NOT fight tooth and nail as you say, but fully support it.
You don't think. Well you are going to have to do better than that. Because Frank-Dodds does prevent "too big to fail" and it does provide a mechanism of dismantling large banks (Tittle II).
And the evidence is they did fight tooth and nail to oppose Dodds-Frank. If you had been paying attention you would know that banks have been fighting Dodds-Frank.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/07/10/the-billion-dollar-bank-heist.html
“Passing this bill was no easy task,” Obama told the 400 dignitaries who witnessed the most ambitious overhaul of the financial system since the Great Depression. “We had to overcome the furious lobbying of an array of powerful interest groups and a partisan minority determined to block change.”
The pomp and ceremony may have been premature. Ever since the law’s passage, those same “powerful interest groups” who opposed Dodd-Frank have been trying to prevent it from taking effect.
“Just because we lost that round,” says Cam Fine, president of the Independent Community Bankers of America, which spent $1 million in the first three months of this year to lobby against implementation, “doesn’t mean we just give up. - Daily Beast
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd–Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act
Just ask yourself: Are the TOO BIG TOO FAIL BANKS STILL TOO BIG TO FAIL? Come on Joe. I know you can figure this one out.
It is pretty obvious Michael you have not done much research here, you are just repeating stuff you have heard from right wing sources.
6) There's no convincing Theobots. It's just not possible. I've provided you with the evidence. You just refuse to accept it. Just like a Theobot. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Lets just wait and see. Remember, the first time I said that, there were no OWS protester. Now they're all over the world. Greece is on the verge of collapsing and get this WE'RE NOT GOING TO PAY BACK THE DEBT. We'll use alternative currency. Whatever it takes. This will happen. They are not getting their blood money. I predict those OWS protesters are going to start killing bankers as the economy REALLY goes into the shitters, then we'll some real shit hitting the fan.
Well you are right there, there really is no convincing the emotionally attached. But unfortunately that is you Michael. It is like trying to convince a Christian to become a Muslim or a Muslim to become a Christian. It just doesn't happen very often.
I am not sure what the OWS protestors have to do with this discussion. But they are definately not Paul people or right wing Tea Party folks either. And they do have some very legitimate issues. I support them and hope that they can bring about some meaningful change - make the system more competitive and provide more opportunity.
I am not sure what Greece has to with this conversation. But yes, I think it is likely that it will default on a portion of it's debt. Current discussion is about a 50 percent haircut on Greek debt.
I don't think the OWS people are going to start killing anyone. The movement has been entirely peaceful and that is a good thing. And I don't think the economy is going into the shitters. I see no evidence of same, though I can envision a situation in which that could occur (e.g. right wing control of government).
7) Lastly, Ron Paul is not the one who's a throw back to an era that didn't work. You are. The FED is a throwback to the early 1900s. Get this, it's corrupt and it didn't work Joe. LQQk out your window. Does it look like things are working?
Ah Michael, try to detach yourself from your political theology for a moment. The Fed has been around for almost a century. And contrary to your assertions, the Federal Reserve has been quite successful.
The facts are Michael that economic depressions and recessions have become less frequent and less severe under the Federal Reserve and other Keynesian economic tools than it was before those tools were implemented. Paul is advocating we go backward to a time when economic recessions and depressions were both more frequent and more severe. In the minds of most people that is not progress. And that is why Paul will continue to appeal to minor cult following who refuse to recognize reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States
"The National Bureau of Economic Research dates recessions on a monthly basis back to 1854; according to their chronology, from 1854 to 1919, there were 16 cycles. The average recession lasted 22 months, and the average expansion 27. From 1919 to 1945, there were six cycles; recessions lasted an average 18 months and expansions for 35. From 1945 to 2001, and 10 cycles, recessions lasted an average 10 months and expansions an average of 57 months.[5] This has prompted some economists to declare that the business cycle has become less severe.[7] Factors that may have contributed to this moderation include the creation of a central bank and lender of last resort, like the Federal Reserve System in 1913, the establishment of deposit insurance in the form of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in 1933, increased regulation of the banking sector, the adoption of interventionist Keynesian economics, and the increase in automatic stabilizers in the form of government programs (unemployment insurance, social security, and later Medicare and Medicaid). See Post-World War II economic expansion for further discussion." - Wikipedia
So you see Michael, I prefer reputable sources of information. I don't believe every blog or web site pretending to have some special knowledge which is unknown to most. I don't believe in irrational conspiracies - call it a personality defect.
The bottom line here is Paul and his devotees are advocating policies that are a throw back to an era where recessions and depressions were both more frequent and more severe. Facts are facts Michael, and they just do not support your contentions.
