Electing Romney after what happened in 2007-2008 is akin to marrying your rapist to hide the shame. He'll do it all over again, only this time it's with "consent".

Regulations don't matter if you're one of the President's biggest bundlers...

/MF

bigbadideasinaction: Electing Romney after what happened in 2007-2008 is akin to marrying your rapist to hide the shame. He'll do it all over again, only this time it's with "consent".

Cletus from Canuckistan: Sorry to threadjack, but why in the hell is there no greenlit thread for this story yet?

ROMNEY: Well, we do provide care for people who don't have insurance, people - we - if someone has a heart attack, they don't sit in their apartment and die. We pick them up in an ambulance, and take them to the hospital, and give them care. And different states have different ways of providing for that care.

One insane Romney comment at a time please. They are getting harder and harder to address in a timely manner because of sheer volume.

we don't need no stinkin badges,regulations,traffic signs or locks on doors.

They did such a fine job of regulating themsleves back in September of 2008 when they were one Government check away from bankruptcy.

you go tim!!

Because People in power are Stupid: When left alone businesses always do the right thing, always.


yea. i find that they always do what is in the best interest of the Nation. Profits and cold, hard cash always comes in second. i'm going to go back to my hash pipe now.

MaudlinMutantMollusk: They never freakin learn, do they?



No.

WE never learn and allow those Turds to do as they please.

teto85: Yeah, that worked out so well in 1928 and '29.


and '90, '91 and 2008, 2009. etc etc.

"banks need to do more to regulate themselves.

yep

"These are large organizations with tens of thousands of employees in many cases. There is always going to be some individual doing something that's off track. That's human nature. But the obligation and the opportunity of the organizations is to put controls in place and a culture in place that minimizes the likelihood of that, but does it voluntarily."

Every word of that is true.

"We need regulation, but we don't want it to go so far and overreach that it stifles investment and economic growth and job growth," he said.

Same there.... question is what he finds to be "acceptable" regulation

incendi: Well, banks SHOULD regulate themselves. But there's not a chance in hell that they actually would if you let that be the only check on their behavior.

Of course they regulate themselves, just in an optimistic, "my bonus this year is more important than accurately trying to judge future economic and financial risks to the bank", sort of way.

DarwiOdrade: What could possibly go wrong?

I"m trying to figure out why I have you in red and labeled as an idiot.....

Is there some giant slime filled gutter hidden away in a secret GOP bunker that spawns these guiys?

Why do people keep falling for it and letting these guys guard the chicken coup? You know that once you look away they're just going to start farking those chickens, but you keep on doing it.

There is one good thing this election is showing and that is that there is an upper limit on the number of votes you can buy.

I almost choked on my goddamn sandwich when I read this sh*t.
Mr Pawlenty, might I suggest you look at the last ten or so years of American history before you blurt out something so goddamn f*cking stupid the next time? Do you realize how many people in their walnut-paneled boardrooms probably read this and burst a gut laughing... at you?

If the asshats that ran the banks could be trusted to control and regulate themselves at any time in our history, there would not be an assload of laws and agencies needed to watch them. Same with most corporations... until they were forced to, they would not regulate themselves because doing the right thing is never as profitable (in their eyes and in the sort term) as doing the wrong thing. 

This guy is out of his mind.

The Dodd-Frank bill is a product of the banking lobby. Dodd and Frank were both very much bought and paid for. There are bankers on both sides of this debate. That is why the more simple and vigorous solution of breaking up big banks preemptively was not up for discussion among Dems in 2009. Huntsman is the only pol to propose it, and that went over about as well with his base in 2012 as Opening to China would have gone for Nixon if he had brought it up in 1968.

Kibbler: "But of course they shouldn't bail themselves out. The 47% slackers need to chip in on that. Privatize the profits. Socialize the losses. This will lead to Saint Reagan farting unicorns from a rainbow."


Didn't I see that at the Denver airport?

RyogaM: Philip Francis Queeg: palelizard: Calmamity: vpb: Yes, and criminals should arrest and prosecute themselves.

Citizens should be trusted to pay the taxes they owe. The IRS is completely unnecessary and onerous oversight.

Other countries can be counted on to not invade anyone. We have no need for a military.

We can trust people not to enter the country without the proper approvals. The border patrol should be disbanded.

People certainly value their cars and lives and can be trusted to drive responsibly. There is no need to have traffic signs, speed limits and lights telling them how to act or traffic police to enforce the rules.

People are born with two legs, so there is no need to pay for roads anymore> See no more spending money from the federal government and the state government. It's a win-win scenario.

c'mon guys, i'm sure the banks will pump countless, healthy, financial products into our....



....help me out

rewind2846: I almost choked on my goddamn sandwich when I read this sh*t.
Mr Pawlenty, might I suggest you look at the last ten or so years of American history before you blurt out something so goddamn f*cking stupid the next time? Do you realize how many people in their walnut-paneled boardrooms probably read this and burst a gut laughing... at you?

If the asshats that ran the banks could be trusted to control and regulate themselves at any time in our history, there would not be an assload of laws and agencies needed to watch them. Same with most corporations... until they were forced to, they would not regulate themselves because doing the right thing is never as profitable (in their eyes and in the sort term) as doing the wrong thing. 

This guy is out of his mind.

the TP article doesn't mention him talking about the need for actual regulation as well. He was saying that banks need to regulate themselves in addition to government regulation. What that government regulation is meant to be isn't mentioned but it certainly isn't worth choking on yer sammich over

Tim Pawlenty do anyting you wan. He so HORNEY. He so HORNEY. He such-hee such-hee.

MinatoArisato013: RyogaM: Philip Francis Queeg: palelizard: Calmamity: vpb: Yes, and criminals should arrest and prosecute themselves.

Citizens should be trusted to pay the taxes they owe. The IRS is completely unnecessary and onerous oversight.

Other countries can be counted on to not invade anyone. We have no need for a military.

We can trust people not to enter the country without the proper approvals. The border patrol should be disbanded.

People certainly value their cars and lives and can be trusted to drive responsibly. There is no need to have traffic signs, speed limits and lights telling them how to act or traffic police to enforce the rules.

People are born with two legs, so there is no need to pay for roads anymore> See no more spending money from the federal government and the state government. It's a win-win scenario.

> to a period, my keyboard must have been possessed by the debil.

RedVentrue: Kibbler: "But of course they shouldn't bail themselves out. The 47% slackers need to chip in on that. Privatize the profits. Socialize the losses. This will lead to Saint Reagan farting unicorns from a rainbow."


Didn't I see that at the Denver airport?

You mean those "I double dare you to make up a conspiracy" murals?

both sides are bad

.... mmm nope

soy_bomb: [static5.businessinsider.com image 400x300]
Regulations don't matter if you're one of the President's biggest bundlers...

/MF


But apparently they do, because the financial industry is desperately trying to get rid of the regulations the Democrats have brought forward.

DemonEater: Because that worked SO WELL the last time.

So, here are two options:
Very strict regulations to prevent too-big-to-fail banks, no bailouts for failure, minimal regulations otherwise (you fark up, you fail, you go out of business - self-interest says don't fark up)...?

I wish that were the case... but it's not just the banks, it's american business as a whole.
It has become so spread out and interconnected that even smaller busineses failing can have an impact on thousands of people and jobs.
Consider when GM was going to fail... had it gone down no only would GM employees be thrashed, but their suppliers as well. when the suppliers went down, other auto manufacturers would take the hit, since many of them made parts for them as well.
Works the other way too... once upon a time GM, Ford etc made nearly everything that went into a car from the raw iron ore to the finished product. Now if just one of their major suppliers went down, like PPG (glass) no one gets glass for their cars. No windshields, nothing. Eggs in one basket, economies of scale and all that.

If there were some way to cordon off, quarantine or isolate these banks so that their failure would not tear the ass out of the economy when it happened, I'd be all for letting them rot. It's too late for that now.

Farker Soze: Why do people keep falling for it and letting these guys guard the chicken coup? You know that once you look away they're just going to start farking those chickens, but you keep on doing it.

Because all Republicans and a sizable chunk of Democrats are in the back pockets of bankers. And at least half of the American electorate will vote for the politician who claims to love Jesus more, instead of the politician that will regulate the banking industry.

rewind2846:
If there were some way to cordon off, quarantine or isolate these banks so that their failure would not tear the ass out of the economy when it happened, I'd be all for letting them rot. It's too late for that now.

How about just taking the scumball CEOs and sending them to Galts Gulch with the promise that when we need them we'll bring them back?

The thing about authors like Burroughs and Hunter S. Thompson was that despite the fact that much of their work had some grounding in the current state of the world and society, it was largely a vehicle for fiction in it. I was entertained. I didn't take it as a "calling" or some sort of life-affirming media that was to define our lives or generation....

So why is it that these pricks can't come to grips with the notion that Ayn Rand is in the same category as Stephen King? It's friggin' fiction people! It was meant to entertain you! Maybe it made you think about things but it wasn't a call to arms to try and get you to model the world to imitate it!!!!

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Madagascar Lemur Squat


Nice.

skullkrusher: He was saying that banks need to regulate themselves in addition to government regulation.

Without more context to Pawlenty's quote, I think this is probably a pretty fair interpretation of what he is advocating. One can advocate for methods of "self regulation" without being a full-on market anarchist, but the foundation for self regulation requires undesirable actions to have negative consequences. Bailing our finance industry out from aftereffects of one of the greatest heists in human history sends a pretty clear message that these entities are immune to the negative consequences of their actions.