It's amazing to me how many people don't understand that prices are not directly related to manufacturing/service cost. If they were, you wouldn't see this happen:
You think maybe there is room to increase wages in there???
So, you have no problem with the fact that 50% of the people only earn 12% of the income? That's OK with you as long as they pay more taxes?
What are you talking about? The emails are bragging about how they sold that junk/crap to investors as great and safe investments = clear cut fraud. No wiggle room whatsoever
Read my post again--it's pretty clear. The TBTF sold the "junk/crap" based on an outside ratings agency determination of risk. Regardless of what the TBTF execs believed about the true risk--they weren't the ones who rated the stuff. So how can it be fraud on their part?
You are denying reality. It is irrelevant to the guilt of the TBTF execs what the ratings agencies rated their securities. The fact is that the execs were informed by their own employees, whistle blowers, that the underlying loan quality was garbage, and the execs, including Citi advisor Robert Rubin, did nothing, except to coninute to churn out toxic dreck. It is fraud to knowingly misrepresent the securities you sell. Simple fraud. See the numerous reports on Richard Bowen. Here is but one: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/22/opinion/sunday/was-this-whistle-blower-muzzled.html
I'm really not. We're talking about what you can prove in a court of law. If I'm the CEO of Citi, I say--"Sure, I thought they the risk of the mortgages was higher than what S&P rated them, but they are the experts. There have been many times in the past where I thought S&P had misvalued the risk of securities, and more often than not, it turned out that I was the one who was wrong. I figured they had more information that I did."
How are you going to prove otherwise?
They didn't find this sort of evidence within the ratings agencies, but with the TBTFs which should have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
But how? The TBTF's weren't claiming anything with respect to risk of the mortgage bundles. They were merely selling them based on the ratings agencies opinions. Even if they disagreed with the ratings agency, it's irrelevant--they aren't the experts, the ratings agencies are.
How is claiming a given bond has an AAA rating a misrepresentation when the AAA rating is defined by the ratings agency as nothing more than an opinion?
The only way I can see fraud is if you have emails from the ratings agency folks acknowledging that they were knowingly inflating the ratings on these mortgage bundles. But, I don't recall any investigations into the ratings agencies...
Which shows that you know NOTHING about raising children.... What a surprise!
But keep spewing your bullshit, it's entertaining to watch you make an ass out of yourself.... Again....
This is disturbing...
I certainly hope there is a nanny that performs all the private stuff for the little girl.
I'm sure every single father out there would beg to disagree with you.
Why not? It was a RICO crime in the first place to spread billions of crap bogus CDOs and CDSs which is security fraud.
Is it? I think what the banks did was reprehensible, but I'm not sure it was a crime. Bundling a bunch of crappy loans is not against the law and the banks/Wall St. didn't certify the risk of them--they had the ratings agencies do it. They basically said--hey we don't know, but Standard and Poors says this security is AAA.
Even if in their trader's opinions the securities were crap--they were AAA rated.
You'd have a better case against the rating's agencies--that they gave in to pressure to issue good ratings. They committed the biggest fraud here.
And you wonder why I call you an idiot?
No, I'm well aware of why you call me an idiot--it's your reflex action when you've been shown to be wrong...
it provides motive for the perp running away while in his car
wtf does that even mean? If I have a "motive" to run away, it's OK to shoot me?
"I believe he didn't want to go to jail again," Walter Scott Sr. told TODAY. "He just ran away."
I don't want to go to jail either. Does that make it OK to shoot me in the back as I run away?
At the very least, in order to give incentive to do that so un-American thing: save. It's a simple strategy: don't have kids; persistently shelter and invest the max under law; start as early as possible. People should try to do it even without the preferential rates, but no, they have kids as if it were without consequence; they eschew retirement shelters and take on debt.
I think the issue why the middle and lower class aren't saving has much less to do with tax rates and much more to do with stagnant wages. Increase capital gains taxes, lower income taxes and I think it's at least 50/50 that saving will increase.
At some level of wealth the rich and ultra rich don't need the lesser tax on capital, and it just adds to grotesque wealth disparity. Lowering the cap gains tax for Joe six-pack probably wouldn't persuade very many work-a-day types to fully contribute to IRAs, but it's the right thing to do. Americans would find a reason to ignore it anyway. They always do.
I'd be OK raising cap gains on anything over a certain amount---that'd be a decent compromise.
Do you ever think about why you are sticking up for a cop that shot an unarmed man that was running AWAY from him?
Would you like to show ONE instance where I said that here in this thread?
Where you said what?
Are you really that dense? Or do you just play an idiot in real life?
lol--do you ever answer a question, or just hurl insults when you are shown to be an idiot?
That was a quote from your favorite MSM sources... Apparently shirking responsibility for child support for years is OK with your favorite liberal media sources..
Great job trying to shift the story to the deadbeat Dad. Do you ever think about why you are sticking up for a cop that shot an unarmed man that was running AWAY from him?
I wonder what type of duck image he can use for RentingSusan?
Ever think perhaps that's his wife and they use the same computer??
I can cruise 4 times a year for what I would spend on mortgage payments on an over-inflated pile of 2x4's, sheetrock, cabinets, etc. in your area.
It's a lot more then 4X per year.
But where are you going to live for the other 11 months of the year?
But, "he was a loving father of 4 children".
CIC-you are making a bigger idiot of yourself than you usually do. The bottom line is that a man was shot in the back multiple times while running/walking quickly away from a police officer. There is absolutely no rationale that can justify it. NONE. There was no imminent threat to anyone.
I think it is long past time for Republicans to set the record straight and take on the Democrat 9/11 and WMD truthers.
Can't wait for the Presidential debates with Clinton when Rubio, Cruz, or Walker say this:
"When you took over as Secretary of State, Iraq was stable, the Arab Spring was flourishing, Iranians were in the streets demanding reform from the Mullahs, and Gadaffi handed over his WMD and nuke program. But for some reason you and Obama threw it all away by pulling every last troop out of Iraq and toppled Gadaffi on your way out of town creating even more chaos and anarchy allowing ISIS to flourish. On top of all this, Russia is invading and annexing parts of Eastern Europe. Can you name one corner of the planet that is better off under your leadership?"
Are you under the impression that it will be a difficult question to answer?
1. Iraq was not stable. We weren't losing American soldiers at the same rate anymore, but it was far from stable. The previous Republican administration's idiotic decision to invade destabilized the country and having American troops stationed there for years was the best recruiting tool for Islamic terror organizations they could have dreamed of, and was a big driver for the growth of ISIS.
2. Arab Spring was a good thing, only the previous administration had so butchered Iraq that the free elections were all leading to Islamic governments. We went from dictatorial secular governments to elected Islamic ones.
3. After 9/11, the US had the opportunity to show it's leadership to the world, but we instead threw it all away to attack a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. The current administration ended the useless wars that have probably led to record terrorist enrollments. Further, this administration actually hunted down and killed the man who was responsible for 9/11.
I'm no political expert and it took me 2 minutes to come up with those points.
Why should capital be taxed less than labor??
And I'd be willing to bet that you'd be better off with higher capital gains taxes and lower income taxes.
Is trying to defend W. and Cheney really the hill some of you want to die on? Dan has it right--if can't acknowledge that the worst of the Republican Party is bad--you lose all credibility.
My favorite line about Cheney is from the movie Game Change (HBO Doc about Palin)--"dick cheney said we made a reckless choice. When you've lost the moral high ground to Cheney, you really need to rethink your whole life." (Paraphrased)
And, none of them even touched on the question, how did a guy who was stopped for a broken tail light end up dead in a grassy field?
Uh, perhaps because we have a video that shows exactly how that happened. He was shot multiple times in the back and those wounds caused his death. I don't think that's really a question anyone is asking.
You're missing the point. The reason healthcare has gotten expensive is the subsidies in the 1st place. Just like a college education, just like defense weapons the $400 toilet seat, just like public unions and their over paid workers, and it works the other way also with subsidized water in Calif.
Notwithstanding that the reasons behind healthcare and education inflation have nothing in common with a $400 toilet seat or defense weapons, your reasoning is typical of the right wing. The solution is to make things like healthcare and education available ONLY to those in the upper class. Then demand will be reduced and prices won't rise as much.
Pretty much everything conservatives believe in boils down to "got mine, f*(#& you."
I'm guessing that a pipeline to the Midwest is out of the question, since Obama would veto it.
That, and the small matter of the cost.