Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   Tim Pawlenty, who stepped down as co-chairman of the Romney campaign to take a job as a bank lobbyist, says that banks should regulate themselves   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 195
    More: Obvious, Tim Pawlenty, Fox Sports Radio, Minnesota Governor, retirements, Round Table, lobbyists, Colorado, Dodd-Frank  
•       •       •

1780 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Sep 2012 at 5:49 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



195 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-09-24 04:26:41 PM  
Surprise!
 
2012-09-24 04:27:39 PM  
In his first press conference since being named head of the Financial Services Roundtable, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty said he would seek a "refinement" of the Dodd-Frank Act, but also added that banks need to do more to regulate themselves.

This coupled with

Of course, the anticipation that banks would self-regulate - rendering federal regulations unnecessary - was part of what caused the financial crisis in 2008. Romney has pledged to repeal the Dodd-Frank law.

this has me doubting they'll do it without being forced to. Sorry Timmeh.
 
2012-09-24 04:28:47 PM  
When left alone businesses always do the right thing, always.
 
2012-09-24 04:30:27 PM  
"Stop doing stupid things."

Ball is in your court, Tim.
 
2012-09-24 04:32:49 PM  
They never freakin learn, do they?
 
2012-09-24 04:32:59 PM  
1.bp.blogspot.com

Too bad you didn't do the right thing the first go round.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-24 04:33:28 PM  
Yes, and criminals should arrest and prosecute themselves.
 
2012-09-24 04:38:53 PM  

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.
 
2012-09-24 04:40:51 PM  
former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty said he would seek a "refinement" of the Dodd-Frank Act, but also added that banks need to do more to regulate themselves.

We tried that in 2004.

The Securities and Exchange Commission can blame itself for the current crisis. That is the allegation being made by a former SEC official, Lee Pickard, who says a rule change in 2004 led to the failure of Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, and Merrill Lynch.

The SEC allowed five firms - the three that have collapsed plus Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley - to more than double the leverage they were allowed to keep on their balance sheets and remove discounts that had been applied to the assets they had been required to keep to protect them from defaults.


Link

Agency's '04 Rule Let Banks Pile Up New Debt
 
2012-09-24 04:46:14 PM  
Also, if the laws aren't needed, because banks will just do it anyway, why do the banks want those laws removed?
 
2012-09-24 04:47:03 PM  
I think Romney's comment on Pawlenty moving to be a banking lobbyist speaks volumes about how Romney thinks. Romney: While I regret he cannot continue as co-chair of my campaign, his new position advancing the integrity of our financial system is vital to the future of our country.

Really? That's what a lobbyist for the banking industry is going to be doing in Washington? Really?
 
2012-09-24 04:48:10 PM  

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.


I like this game. With Romney's "self-deportation" plan we can also get rid of ICE.

Think of the savings!
 
2012-09-24 04:54:34 PM  
And bridges repair themselves.
 
2012-09-24 05:04:02 PM  
"Bank lobbyist". I have to take a sonic shower just after reading those words.
 
2012-09-24 05:06:26 PM  
Pawlenty...expects the banking industry to self-regulate,ostensibly having learned from their mistakes?

................

media.tumblr.com
 
2012-09-24 05:13:46 PM  
Why are organizations with the word "roundtable" always so farking evil?
 
2012-09-24 05:17:35 PM  
You know what other regulations we should do without? RICO. Let the mob self-regulate.
 
2012-09-24 05:17:50 PM  

vartian: Why are organizations with the word "roundtable" always so farking evil?


I don't recall the Arthurian Knights ever earning such a reputation,but of course,they're...Well,you know.
 
2012-09-24 05:18:29 PM  
What could possibly go wrong?
 
2012-09-24 05:20:42 PM  
ABANDON SHIP!
 
2012-09-24 05:47:22 PM  

Apos: vartian: Why are organizations with the word "roundtable" always so farking evil?

I don't recall the Arthurian Knights ever earning such a reputation,but of course,they're...Well,you know.


Socialist?
 
2012-09-24 05:51:04 PM  
Sure.......cuz it worked out so well last time.

/idiot
 
2012-09-24 05:51:36 PM  
OK, sounds great, but if he's wrong, do we get to hang him?
 
2012-09-24 05:51:53 PM  
banks should regulate themselves

They should. They failed in 2008 because there were still too may regulations in place.

*coughs*
 
2012-09-24 05:51:58 PM  
This is as clear of a sign as anything that Pawlenty is running in 2016. He has the credentials (to the GOP) from his time as governor, now he's going to shore-up the financial sector support by crusading for them and padding his Rolodex....and coffers.

My words. Mark them.
 
2012-09-24 05:52:15 PM  

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.
 
2012-09-24 05:52:29 PM  
When you privatize the profit and socialize the risk where is their motivation to self-regulate??

Sorry T-Paw, you're a farking moron.
 
2012-09-24 05:53:39 PM  

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.
 
2012-09-24 05:54:09 PM  
And presidential campaigns should chair themselves.

wait a second - now I know whose idea this was.

www.poynter.org
 
2012-09-24 05:55:43 PM  
Yeah, that worked out so well in 1928 and '29.
 
2012-09-24 05:56:51 PM  

Diogenes: I like this game. With Romney's "self-deportation" plan we can also get rid of ICE.

Think of the savings!


No no no no no, a thousand times no. Self-regulation only works for rich straight white Christian people.
 
2012-09-24 05:58:11 PM  
I agree that child molestation is bad, but ultimately it's up to the molesters to regulate themselves. Control your urges people, geez! And problem solved.
 
2012-09-24 05:58:36 PM  
Can we have the Glass-Steagall Act back please before these arseholes destroy what left of the economy?
 
2012-09-24 05:59:16 PM  
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)

OR

You can become a behemoth and have some sort of safety net, BUT subject to strict regulations so that you can't fark up so badly

Which do we do?
 
2012-09-24 06:00:43 PM  
Son, you're going to have to make up your own punishment
 
2012-09-24 06:00:47 PM  
I remember once arguing with a man who was in favor of deregulation of utilities, because it would lower prices.

When I pointed out it actually tends to raise prices, he claimed they just were not deregulated correctly. He then went on to argue for the elimination of the EPA, as things weren't all that bad during the pre-EPA days, despite environmentalist propaganda.
 
2012-09-24 06:03:14 PM  

Apos: Pawlenty...expects the banking industry to self-regulate,ostensibly having learned from their mistakes?

................

[media.tumblr.com image 381x212]


Yes!!!!! I love Supernatural. Dean is my favorite. That got you on my favorites!
 
2012-09-24 06:03:30 PM  
So Pawlenty is an ardent supporter of Standard Charter Bank's money-laundering scheme with Iran? It's nice to know a leading Republican supports terrorists regimes.
 
2012-09-24 06:03:46 PM  
He is completely right.

However, banks must also be allowed to fail due to their own mistakes.
 
2012-09-24 06:04:32 PM  
Inmates should run their own asylums.
 
2012-09-24 06:05:09 PM  
Let banks fail. No bailouts or freebies they stand on their own without one cent from the taxpayer. Sounds good to me.
 
2012-09-24 06:07:12 PM  

Nome de Plume: Let banks fail. No bailouts or freebies they stand on their own without one cent from the taxpayer. Sounds good to me.


NO! NO! NO! What the banks want is Socialism, that's right Socialism. They want to socialize the loses and privatize the profits. Socialism at it's best.
 
2012-09-24 06:09:11 PM  
Wow the derp is starting to pile up in here.
 
2012-09-24 06:10:04 PM  
He is right. Banks should regulate themselves. Since they don't we have create laws to regulate them.
 
2012-09-24 06:10:49 PM  
imageshack.us

Ask your grandparents how well that turned out last time.
 
2012-09-24 06:11:58 PM  
And when a bank craters and your Mom's retirement fund goes up in smoke and she's forced back into the working world at 68 years old, well, thanks to Magic of the Free Market she can then select a NON-failed bank to put all those dollars she earns doing the Madagascar Lemur Squat for all those Chinese sailors down by the docks!
 
2012-09-24 06:12:56 PM  
Yes, and prisoners should watch over themselves. You'll probably get the same effect.
 
2012-09-24 06:13:12 PM  

basemetal: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 850x564]

Too bad you didn't do the right thing the first go round.


They got into that mess because liberals made them do it! Who created government-sponsored entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? LIBERALS! Who FORCED the banks to give affirmative action mortgages to minorities, illegal immigrants, welfare queens, and other 47 percenters? LIBERALS!

Do you think lenders WANTED to make billions and billions of dollars originating bad loans and selling them off to Fannie Mae? NO! They HAD to, because of LIBERAL regulations!

[libslibslibs.jpg]
 
2012-09-24 06:17:12 PM  
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.
 
2012-09-24 06:18:47 PM  
Sure, as long as they leave the Federal Reserve, practice 100% reserve banking, do not deal in government issued MBSs and make it clear to customers that any deposits are NOT backed by the full faith and credit of the US government. No takers? Ok, then. No.
 
2012-09-24 06:18:55 PM  
"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."

Because if there's ANYTHING we can count on, it's large corporations to voluntarily impose restrictions on themselves. YAY Free Market!

Seriously, does he expect anyone with a brain and without a conflict of interest to buy his Magic Beans?
 
2012-09-24 06:19:26 PM  
Well, he started really quickly. At least the guys has a good, midwestern work ethic.
 
2012-09-24 06:19:27 PM  
"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."
 
2012-09-24 06:22:48 PM  

doyner: This is as clear of a sign as anything that Pawlenty is running in 2016. He has the credentials (to the GOP) from his time as governor, now he's going to shore-up the financial sector support by crusading for them and padding his Rolodex....and coffers.

My words. Mark them.




The fact that he's taken a head lobbying job for The Financial Services Roundtable shows that his political career is pretty much over. That's the kind of cushy K Street lobbying job politicians retire to when they've been put out to pasture.

Let's put it this way ... he couldn't even get out of the starting gate in 2012 Primary with that field full of misfits and freaks. He's going to have no chance in in 2016 when Jeb, Christie, Rubio and Ryan are in the field?
 
2012-09-24 06:24:47 PM  

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.
 
2012-09-24 06:27:52 PM  
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.
 
2012-09-24 06:33:43 PM  
Yes they should. But they won't, because they expect the government to take care of them despite their poor decisions.

Bunch of farking welfare queens.
 
2012-09-24 06:34:23 PM  
From the same crowd that thinks welfare recipients should be subjected to drug tests, background checks, immigration checks, job search checks... How come human welfare recipients shouldn't be allowed to regulate themselves like corporate welfare recipients?
 
2012-09-24 06:34:35 PM  

Mikey1969: "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."

Because if there's ANYTHING we can count on, it's large corporations to voluntarily impose restrictions on themselves. YAY Free Market!


It's arguably a violation of a corporation's fiduciary duty to its shareholders to adopted voluntary restrictions that can reduce their profits (without getting consent from all the shareholders, at least).
 
2012-09-24 06:34:56 PM  
Just wait, Dodd-Frank needs to be rolled back? Those regulations are stiffling like a blowjob from a newly minted high school english teacher. Man, how will they ever get buy with suchrough treatment.
 
2012-09-24 06:36:07 PM  

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.


Actually, there should be no laws at all. People will always do the right & honorable thing.
 
2012-09-24 06:38:53 PM  

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.


Did you submit it with a good headline?
 
2012-09-24 06:39:06 PM  
Step 1: Grow the world's most powerful financial sector.
Step 2: Put the financial sector on the honor system.
Step 3: Profit

//I would say "Step 3: Go Bankrupt" but we all know the US government won't let that happen,
 
2012-09-24 06:42:36 PM  
Wasn't he supposed to be one of the sane Republicans? Ladies and gentlemen, this is the kind of idea a sane Republican comes up with.
 
2012-09-24 06:43:22 PM  
how farking out of touch do you have to be to think this is a good idea?

just the suggestion gets me all stabby.

FARK!
 
2012-09-24 06:43:58 PM  
"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."

Ah yes, the famous "one bad apple" defense and strategy. Banks just want to be good and follow the law, but there's always some rogue employee spoiling things for the rest of us.

//FU Pawlenty.
 
2012-09-24 06:49:19 PM  
It makes sense when you realize there are people who only want the country to work well enough for them to loot it. Actually letting the little people build any wealth would be bad for them.
 
2012-09-24 06:50:09 PM  
If what happened in 2008 happens again ... even I'll be out on the street demanding blood. It still makes me shake with rage.
 
2012-09-24 06:51:59 PM  
"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."

i1136.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-24 06:53:14 PM  

Apos: vartian: Why are organizations with the word "roundtable" always so farking evil?

I don't recall the Arthurian Knights ever earning such a reputation,but of course,they're...Well,you know.


That's what I mean. Those guys were, more or less, kind of awesome. The rest are monsters.
 
2012-09-24 06:57:42 PM  

InmanRoshi: doyner: This is as clear of a sign as anything that Pawlenty is running in 2016. He has the credentials (to the GOP) from his time as governor, now he's going to shore-up the financial sector support by crusading for them and padding his Rolodex....and coffers.

My words. Mark them.



The fact that he's taken a head lobbying job for The Financial Services Roundtable shows that his political career is pretty much over. That's the kind of cushy K Street lobbying job politicians retire to when they've been put out to pasture.

Let's put it this way ... he couldn't even get out of the starting gate in 2012 Primary with that field full of misfits and freaks. He's going to have no chance in in 2016 when Jeb, Christie, Rubio and Ryan are in the field?


I would LOVE to make a side bet on this. What do you think all the candidates that weren't in office during the campaign were doing?
 
2012-09-24 06:59:28 PM  
I'm guessing with this latest career move he's finally realized he's never, ever going to be nominated for President.
 
2012-09-24 07:00:02 PM  
Farking whore.
 
2012-09-24 07:00:07 PM  
Good on Pawlenty for completely wasting banks' monies on a completely ineffectual leader
 
2012-09-24 07:02:52 PM  
WOW, think of all the money we'd save not having to pay regulators.

and how much we would save if we layed off the FBI, CIA and the ATF!

// Now I understand why they want to fire all of the Teachers...
 
2012-09-24 07:05:27 PM  

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.


That would be here. Enjoy!
 
2012-09-24 07:09:04 PM  

Lost Thought 00: Good on Pawlenty for completely wasting banks' monies on a completely ineffectual leader


Honestly. What has the man ever done that would make any individual or institution think, "That's someone I need representing me."
 
2012-09-24 07:12:54 PM  

MrEricSir: [imageshack.us image 599x450]

Ask your grandparents how well that turned out last time.


Mine still don't get it. I think my great-grandparents would have understood though.
 
2012-09-24 07:13:51 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: They never freakin learn, do they?


What do you mean, learn? Learn from what? You made the false assumption that these jackasses give a flying fark about us regular people beyond the lies they tell in front of cameras. Banks found out that politicians will just bail them out, the rich got richer, corporations have made record profits, and the average worker is so desperate for a job now they'll work for less. Nobody responsible was held accountable or sent to jail and nobody will be, no meaningful reform has happened or likely will. What makes you think people like Romney, Pawlenty, and the Financial Services Roundtable and other groups/corps like them aren't quite happy with the results?
 
2012-09-24 07:14:50 PM  

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.


Watch it. Some farkers honestly think that way about traffic laws.
 
2012-09-24 07:24:09 PM  

Emposter: MaudlinMutantMollusk: They never freakin learn, do they?

What do you mean, learn? Learn from what? You made the false assumption that these jackasses give a flying fark about us regular people beyond the lies they tell in front of cameras. Banks found out that politicians will just bail them out, the rich got richer, corporations have made record profits, and the average worker is so desperate for a job now they'll work for less. Nobody responsible was held accountable or sent to jail and nobody will be, no meaningful reform has happened or likely will. What makes you think people like Romney, Pawlenty, and the Financial Services Roundtable and other groups/corps like them aren't quite happy with the results?


Indeed. Of course, considering some 300,000,000 Americans part of the superfluous population that has stake in policy matters is a very dangerous game. It's possible people might get upset at the actual culprits.

/hint: it's not the poor, right wingers
//and it's not the cops, left wingers
 
2012-09-24 07:26:02 PM  

RanDomino: From the same crowd that thinks welfare recipients should be subjected to drug tests, background checks, immigration checks, job search checks... How come human welfare recipients shouldn't be allowed to regulate themselves like corporate welfare recipients?


Questioning your betters? That's a foreclosin'.
 
2012-09-24 07:27:04 PM  

Apos: vartian: Why are organizations with the word "roundtable" always so farking evil?

I don't recall the Arthurian Knights ever earning such a reputation,but of course,they're...Well,you know.


Long Dead?
 
2012-09-24 07:32:23 PM  
My Mom is 91and she was a little girl during the depression, so I don't think many people actually remember.
(she is tight tho)
 
2012-09-24 07:33:00 PM  
"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."

Why, T'Pau? Why should it be voluntary? My underwriting your evil-minded shiat isn't voluntary. My participation in the system that feeds these pieces of trash until the bankers themselves start to look like human balloons made entirely of stolen money isn't voluntary. Why should it be "voluntary"?

Because here's what I get when I think "voluntary". I think fark your system, I refuse to cooperate. I "volunteer" to expropriate everything that's been stolen. I "volunteer" to start building scaffolds and guillotines. How's that for voluntary?

You want your capitalist gravy train? You'd better farking hope the regulators reign this shiat in before even more people start contemplating what they could "volunteer" to do.
 
2012-09-24 07:33:01 PM  
Rivers will clean themselves. We don't need the EPA to decide how much arsenic should be in your drinking water. If a river is on fire, that's just the free market promoting competition among the various rivers that do business in the US of A.
 
2012-09-24 07:37:30 PM  
Stoners should regulate pot.
If you don't use it, you don't really know what the effects are.
 
2012-09-24 07:38:30 PM  
That's fine with me, we will just have a set of regulated banks who receive FDIC insurance and are not investment banks and another set who can make their own rules and attract business through the free market without FDIC backing.
 
2012-09-24 07:40:01 PM  
l-userpic.livejournal.com

Aw jeez, not this shiat again!
 
2012-09-24 07:49:52 PM  
Can we have him got back to the Rmoney campaign? He'd do less damage there.
 
2012-09-24 07:52:09 PM  
Tim Pawlenty, who stepped down as co-chairman of the Romney campaign to take a job as a bank lobbyist, says that banks should regulate themselves

Yes, because deregulation of the banking industry has worked out so well...
 
2012-09-24 07:53:09 PM  

Apos: vartian: Why are organizations with the word "roundtable" always so farking evil?

I don't recall the Arthurian Knights ever earning such a reputation,but of course,they're...Well,you know.


Only a model?
 
2012-09-24 08:02:50 PM  
We'd make some actual progress in this country if we:
1) Publicly funded elections
2) Banned lobbying.
 
2012-09-24 08:03:40 PM  
This is the sort of idea, Tim, that needs to be defenestrated at 40,000 feet.
 
2012-09-24 08:05:35 PM  
So wait, this must mean that Romney is in favor of breaking up banks so that none are too bug to fail?
 
2012-09-24 08:06:14 PM  
Well, I meant big, but bug feels good.
 
2012-09-24 08:10:15 PM  
NO Banks need more regulation not less. its become frightening clear banks cannot be trusted to self regulate.
 
2012-09-24 08:13:20 PM  
Even this farker has figured out that this is a stupid idea.

medillonthehill.net
 
2012-09-24 08:13:31 PM  
fark you, Tim.
 
2012-09-24 08:14:48 PM  
Remember when Tim Pawlenty was considered one of the "serious" prospects (and it was always taken as read but never stated outright just what that "seriousness" was as opposed to, probably just for the sake of politeness) for the Republican nomination?

Good times. At least he had a better angle than a farking book tour.

I suppose I can take some solace in having watched a major political party's primary election process get whored out THAT shamelessly. It's like it all went down in the lobby of the motel right next to the airport at about lunch time, and everybody reeked of cheapass vodka and nobody gave a shiat. Like, at all. Not even the fat guy working the desk, he was reading the want ads and munching on a baby ruth the whole time the GOP was yelling "oh shiat yeah gimme that big cock oooooh fark baby NEXT" really unconvincingly.
 
2012-09-24 08:19:21 PM  
The Reagan administration gave banks both deregulation and increased federal deposit insurance from $40,000 to $100,000 granting lending institutions a heads they win tails you lose business incentive. The FDIC paid out $870,000,000 the first year and then it got ugly. Conservative bankers foam at the mouth at the thought of federal involvement in their business, except when it comes to covering their losses.
 
2012-09-24 08:24:25 PM  

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.


As are debt collection agencies, of course the populous can be trusted to pay all their bills in full and on time. Debt collectors are just onerous middlemen in the way of company profits!

The derp is really starting to spin up.
 
2012-09-24 08:41:19 PM  
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".
 
2012-09-24 08:42:30 PM  
static5.businessinsider.com
Regulations don't matter if you're one of the President's biggest bundlers...

/MF
 
2012-09-24 08:47:49 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: This is the sort of idea, Tim, that needs to be defenestrated at 40,000 feet.


So they really can roll down the windows?
 
2012-09-24 08:50:09 PM  

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".


kellimarshall.net
 
2012-09-24 08:50:30 PM  

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.
 
2012-09-24 08:52:08 PM  

Stranded On The Planet Dumbass: My Mom is 91and she was a little girl during the depression, so I don't think many people actually remember.
(she is tight tho)


Giggity?
 
2012-09-24 09:09:54 PM  
we don't need no stinkin badges,regulations,traffic signs or locks on doors.
 
2012-09-24 09:14:05 PM  
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!!
 
2012-09-24 09:15:46 PM  

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.
 
2012-09-24 09:16:29 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: They never freakin learn, do they?




No.

WE never learn and allow those Turds to do as they please.
 
2012-09-24 09:17:24 PM  

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



and '90, '91 and 2008, 2009. etc etc.
 
2012-09-24 09:27:21 PM  
images3.wikia.nocookie.net

What Tim Pawlenty might look like.
 
2012-09-24 09:29:42 PM  
"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
 
2012-09-24 09:31:32 PM  

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.
 
2012-09-24 09:39:01 PM  
imageshack.us
 
2012-09-24 09:42:12 PM  

Mentat: [imageshack.us image 250x250]


*chortle*
 
2012-09-24 09:45:07 PM  

thenewmissus: Apos: Pawlenty...expects the banking industry to self-regulate,ostensibly having learned from their mistakes?

................

[media.tumblr.com image 381x212]

Yes!!!!! I love Supernatural. Dean is my favorite. That got you on my favorites!


*tips derby* Why thank you.
 
2012-09-24 09:47:35 PM  

DarwiOdrade: What could possibly go wrong?


I"m trying to figure out why I have you in red and labeled as an idiot.....
 
2012-09-24 09:51:56 PM  
Is there some giant slime filled gutter hidden away in a secret GOP bunker that spawns these guiys?
 
2012-09-24 09:53:50 PM  
They are merely paying an homage to Ronald Reagan by forgetting very recent history.
 
2012-09-24 09:55:53 PM  
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.
 
2012-09-24 09:58:19 PM  
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.
 
2012-09-24 10:02:58 PM  
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.
 
2012-09-24 10:05:26 PM  
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.
 
2012-09-24 10:05:52 PM  

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?
 
2012-09-24 10:08:08 PM  

earthworm2.0: DarwiOdrade: What could possibly go wrong?

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


Seems like you have an itchy trigger finger, quick draw.
 
2012-09-24 10:08:47 PM  

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.
 
2012-09-24 10:08:51 PM  
c'mon guys, i'm sure the banks will pump countless, healthy, financial products into our....

www.townofporter.com

....help me out
 
2012-09-24 10:09:03 PM  
BRILLIANT!
 
2012-09-24 10:09:42 PM  

GentDirkly: 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.


So if they couldn't get everything they wanted, they should have done nothing... kinda like the debt super committee? It may not have gone far enough, but shiat man, what the fark was the alternative?
 
2012-09-24 10:10:11 PM  

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
 
2012-09-24 10:10:38 PM  

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.


Who's "you"?
 
2012-09-24 10:12:55 PM  
24.media.tumblr.com

Tim Pawlenty do anyting you wan. He so HORNEY. He so HORNEY. He such-hee such-hee.
 
2012-09-24 10:13:22 PM  

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.


People have this rash on their ass, so there is no need to use this cream that I have that burns.

/wait, what?
 
2012-09-24 10:13:23 PM  
i78.photobucket.com

F****CK YOU, BUDDY TIMMY!
F****CK YOU, BUDDY TIMMY!
F****CK YOU, BUDDY TIMMY!
F****CK YOU, BUDDY TIMMY!
 
2012-09-24 10:13:54 PM  

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.
 
2012-09-24 10:14:07 PM  

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


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


Interesting you should bring up '08 and '09. One theory as to why he won't release his tax returns is that Mitt Romney may have made millions by shorting the housing bubble. (scroll down to 5) Did Romney Make a "Bet Against America"?)
 
2012-09-24 10:14:30 PM  

Flying Lasagna Monster: [24.media.tumblr.com image 500x556]

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


Hey! I already covered the 'whore' thing!!!
 
2012-09-24 10:16:59 PM  

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?

zazenlife.com
 
2012-09-24 10:17:57 PM  
both sides are bad

.... mmm nope
 
2012-09-24 10:19:36 PM  

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.
 
2012-09-24 10:25:12 PM  

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.
 
2012-09-24 10:32:58 PM  

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.
 
2012-09-24 10:42:38 PM  
Seems like a great idea. What could go wrong?
 
2012-09-24 10:52:29 PM  

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?
 
2012-09-24 10:54:26 PM  
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!!!!
 
2012-09-24 10:58:27 PM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Madagascar Lemur Squat



Nice.
 
2012-09-24 10:59:12 PM  

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.
 
2012-09-24 11:05:29 PM  

CrackpipeCardozo: 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.


he was asked how the banking industry can regain the public trust. He replied "By not doing stupid things". He followed that up with "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."

To me that is a continuation of how banks can regain our trust.
 
2012-09-24 11:12:52 PM  

skullkrusher: he was asked how the banking industry can regain the public trust. He replied "By not doing stupid things". He followed that up with "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."


THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT VOLUNTARILY.
\o/
|
/ \
 
2012-09-24 11:14:35 PM  

Mikey1969: Seriously, does he expect anyone with a brain and without a conflict of interest to buy his Magic Beans?


He's trying to appeal to poorly educated morons. That is the GOP base. They eat this stuff up like farking ice cream.
 
2012-09-24 11:15:59 PM  
I wish Tim would be a lobbyist for the food industry - I was just telling my doctor the other day how much I wish my food wasn't checked for arsenic.
 
2012-09-24 11:18:27 PM  
He's now a lobbyist for the banks. Did you expect anything different? When Dodd went to the MPAA he wasn't advocating lighter copyright laws.

You may as well ask a union lobbyist to barter for lower wages.
 
2012-09-24 11:18:54 PM  

skullkrusher: CrackpipeCardozo: 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.

he was asked how the banking industry can regain the public trust. He replied "By not doing stupid things". He followed that up with "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."

To me that is a continuation of how banks can regain our trust.


I wish defensive ends would just stop making dirty hits without fear of penalty or fine. You know, just do the right thing. That would regain our trust in clean football.

//Think of the dogs! If Vick is disabled, he'll go back to pooch fighting.
 
2012-09-24 11:18:58 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT VOLUNTARILY.


Not under the status quo, but I don't think it's completely outside the realm of possibility for financial institutions to take on some degree of self-imposed restraint. The current state of irresponsibility is due to a cause/effect relationship of some sort, but causal changes can result in different effects.
 
2012-09-24 11:19:10 PM  

vpb: Yes, and criminals should arrest and prosecute themselves.


First head of the SEC was Joseph Kennedy. Why Joseph Kennedy? Because he was the biggest market manipulator of his era (back when it wasn't yet illegal). They appointed him because he knew every dirty trick and every loophole.
 
2012-09-24 11:20:21 PM  
I think we have to count on the banking industry to self regulate. They're in the best position to know what their problems are. But it has to be done in concert with government regulations.
Which is why we should repeal Dodd-Frank.
 
2012-09-24 11:22:18 PM  

CrackpipeCardozo: Lee Jackson Beauregard: THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT VOLUNTARILY.

Not under the status quo, but I don't think it's completely outside the realm of possibility for financial institutions to take on some degree of self-imposed restraint. The current state of irresponsibility is due to a cause/effect relationship of some sort, but causal changes can result in different effects.


if you're not trying to intentionally misread this, it's pretty clear what he's saying. In order to regain the public trust banks must, in part, change their culture and practices voluntarily.
 
2012-09-24 11:24:53 PM  

propasaurus: I think we have to count on the banking industry to self regulate. They're in the best position to know what their problems are. But it has to be done in concert with government regulations.
Which is why we should repeal Dodd-Frank.


Weeeeeeelllll....OK

But only if we reinstate Glass-Stegal instead.
 
2012-09-24 11:25:48 PM  

CrackpipeCardozo: I don't think it's completely outside the realm of possibility for financial institutions to take on some degree of self-imposed restraint.


When? We're talking about banks and other organizations that have been around for decades, if not centuries. They've had every opportunity to take on self-imposed restraint. If it hasn't happened by now, I doubt it's going to happen.
 
2012-09-24 11:27:20 PM  

CrackpipeCardozo: Lee Jackson Beauregard: THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT VOLUNTARILY.

Not under the status quo, but I don't think it's completely outside the realm of possibility for financial institutions to take on some degree of self-imposed restraint. The current state of irresponsibility is due to a cause/effect relationship of some sort, but causal changes can result in different effects.


Precisely. It's hard to believe that Pawlenty is that stupid-or naive-to think otherwise. It's akin to expecting an extremely willful child to put away his toys at bedtime merely by peeking in and looking at him.
 
2012-09-24 11:30:50 PM  

skullkrusher: CrackpipeCardozo: Lee Jackson Beauregard: THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT VOLUNTARILY.

Not under the status quo, but I don't think it's completely outside the realm of possibility for financial institutions to take on some degree of self-imposed restraint. The current state of irresponsibility is due to a cause/effect relationship of some sort, but causal changes can result in different effects.

if you're not trying to intentionally misread this, it's pretty clear what he's saying. In order to regain the public trust banks must, in part, change their culture and practices voluntarily.


Hence the reason I said "Not under the status quo." What incentive is there for banks to voluntarily change their culture and practices? Public trust sure as fark isn't one.
 
2012-09-24 11:31:28 PM  

The Why Not Guy: CrackpipeCardozo: I don't think it's completely outside the realm of possibility for financial institutions to take on some degree of self-imposed restraint.

When? We're talking about banks and other organizations that have been around for decades, if not centuries. They've had every opportunity to take on self-imposed restraint. If it hasn't happened by now, I doubt it's going to happen.


Exactly. As long as it puts them at a competitive disadvantage to be more ethical and restrained than others in their industry, companies won't spend a dime or a minute of employee time on policing themselves. Regulations, if done right, should also help keep the playing field level in that there is now a downside to being unethical; also, those who want to do the right thing anyway don't end up being pushed out of the market by unethical competitors who will do anything to make a buck.
 
2012-09-24 11:34:01 PM  

CrackpipeCardozo: skullkrusher: CrackpipeCardozo: Lee Jackson Beauregard: THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT VOLUNTARILY.

Not under the status quo, but I don't think it's completely outside the realm of possibility for financial institutions to take on some degree of self-imposed restraint. The current state of irresponsibility is due to a cause/effect relationship of some sort, but causal changes can result in different effects.

if you're not trying to intentionally misread this, it's pretty clear what he's saying. In order to regain the public trust banks must, in part, change their culture and practices voluntarily.

Hence the reason I said "Not under the status quo." What incentive is there for banks to voluntarily change their culture and practices? Public trust sure as fark isn't one.


he was asked how to change the public perception of banks. His answer was not "let them regulate themselves" but rather "banks should should show a voluntary willingness to improve their culture and practices by self regulation in addition to government regulation". I was really actually agreeing with you. The "if you aren't trying to intentionally misread this..." was the general "you". Not you, you. :)
 
2012-09-24 11:50:25 PM  

Skarekrough: 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!!!!


She also wrote a great deal of nonfiction detailing her philosophy, if you can call it hers when it was a bastardized version of Nietzsche as interpreted by a mouthbreathing idiot. Fiction was a way for her to get her ideas in front of a mass audience, since if she had merely written philosophical treatises they would have been rightfully ignored, if not mocked. She's not in the same category as Stephen King; Marx would be a better comparison, especially since they were both dead wrong, although to be fair Marx's heart was in the right place whereas Ayn Rand didn't have a heart.
 
2012-09-24 11:52:02 PM  
I've got a close relative who started out his career as an economist in the early 1980s trying to help straighten out the savings and loan catastrophes, and worked with FDIC,among other government agencies. In retrospect, you could have called him an "idealist' at that time, though in actuality he was a Reganite*. He subsequently got more and more corrupt, moving into the world of high finance by consulting with paragons of virtue in such countries as Ukraine, Singapore, Indonesia, and Kazakhstan. Now he's worth $50 million, but he feels poor because he's hanging out in a crowd where everyone else is worth at least $100 million, and they goad him that he's a putz and a peon.

Naturally, he's adament that there should be absolutely no regulation whatsoever of the finance industry, despite the fact that he started his career as as a regulator in circumstances that demanded regulation.

*Of course, we all know that Reagan 1980 would be thrown out of today's GOP as an impure RINO.
 
2012-09-25 12:04:01 AM  

Eddie Barzoom: And presidential campaigns should chair themselves.

wait a second - now I know whose idea this was.

[www.poynter.org image 450x580]


I wonder if that old hoss went home that night and went, "Holy shiatballs. I just did an acting exercise to an empty chair, saying nothing of substance, and those people just ate it up...then it turns out the one thing they really, really wanted of me was to pretend it was 1971 and I was the cowboy cop threatening to blow somebody's head off with a hand cannon."
 
2012-09-25 12:08:26 AM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT VOLUNTARILY.


Exactly. A corporation's sole duty is to maximize profit for the shareholders. If they can get it by selling cars or paying employees absolute minimum wage or throwing small animals into a wood chipper, they will do it. A company does not give a rat's ass about consequences unless it is financially damaging.

/Almost like we figured this lesson out in the 1890s
 
2012-09-25 12:11:20 AM  
If you need any more proof that all these politicians and talking heads will do and say whatever they are paid to do and say you need a hammer to the head.
 
2012-09-25 12:19:47 AM  
banks had a very clear way to self regulate in credit markets.

they set up ISDA and Markit to standardize trade terms and reference data, for example.

but the banks didn't go far enough.

for example: before the credit markets started deteriorating in 2007, there was a huge problem with CDS trade fails - trades that failed to settle. the amount of trade fails was in the thousands across Wall Street, and these fails were outstanding for months on end. think about the ramifications of this.

a bank sells some positions to realize paper profits. however, the trades fail, so the cash doesn't change hands until weeks or months afterwards. traders are paid cash bonuses off of these profits, for which the bank hasn't yet received cash.

some banks only started to clear the failed trades out upon the request of the Treasury department.

Link
 
2012-09-25 12:48:09 AM  

malaktaus: Skarekrough: 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!!!!

She also wrote a great deal of nonfiction detailing her philosophy, if you can call it hers when it was a bastardized version of Nietzsche as interpreted by a mouthbreathing idiot. Fiction was a way for her to get her ideas in front of a mass audience, since if she had merely written philosophical treatises they would have been rightfully ignored, if not mocked. She's not in the same category as Stephen King; Marx would be a better comparison, especially since they were both dead wrong, although to be fair Marx's heart was in the right place whereas Ayn Rand didn't have a heart.


Marx? Not so much, at least in my opinion. Rand is more like Hubbard--a minimally talented fiction writer who found her true niche selling prepackaged religion to mindless drones who wanted to BELIEVE!!!
 
2012-09-25 12:56:40 AM  
Tim who? I've met bowls of oatmeal with more personality.
 
2012-09-25 01:15:00 AM  

Bucky Katt: Tim who? I've met bowls of oatmeal with more personality.


imageshack.us
 
2012-09-25 01:16:50 AM  

malaktaus: Skarekrough: 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!!!!

She also wrote a great deal of nonfiction detailing her philosophy, if you can call it hers when it was a bastardized version of Nietzsche as interpreted by a mouthbreathing idiot. Fiction was a way for her to get her ideas in front of a mass audience, since if she had merely written philosophical treatises they would have been rightfully ignored, if not mocked. She's not in the same category as Stephen King; Marx would be a better comparison, especially since they were both dead wrong, although to be fair Marx's heart was in the right place whereas Ayn Rand didn't have a heart.


A better comparison would be the Marquis de Sade, who also wrote novels that detailed his philosophy, and also wrote nonfiction essays to emphasize that no, he was not kidding about the rape and shiat-eating, and who has attracted followers who put his ideas into practice.
 
2012-09-25 01:22:01 AM  
Again?

Didn't he do this last week when it was discussed here?

Or are we time travelling again?
 
2012-09-25 01:24:14 AM  
Looks like someone's working the graveyard shift.
 
2012-09-25 01:25:56 AM  

propasaurus: Looks like someone's working the graveyard shift.


Yes, it looks like you are.

Still dinner time here.
 
2012-09-25 01:40:24 AM  
I was going to suggest we bring back the age old tradition of tarring and feathering for Pawlenty, but whatever. The teabaggers don't want banks to be regulated, either.

Interesting times.
 
2012-09-25 01:52:09 AM  
Sooooo . . . . what is up with the mods these days? This story was green-lit 8 hours ago and there hasn't been one since. T-Paw is interesting in all but some new fodder would be great
 
2012-09-25 02:14:54 AM  

skullkrusher: Sure, as long as they leave the Federal Reserve, practice 100% reserve banking, do not deal in government issued MBSs and make it clear to customers that any deposits are NOT backed by the full faith and credit of the US government. No takers? Ok, then. No.


I think you mean 50% reserve banking.
 
2012-09-25 02:27:34 AM  

whidbey: I was going to suggest we bring back the age old tradition of tarring and feathering for Pawlenty, but whatever.


Tarring and Feathering was a form of vigilante justice to punish Republican African Americans in the post-bellum South.

Pathetic that people don't respect the rule of law and instead want to resort to vigilante justice.

Oh, and don't forget the racist angle that you are bringing up.
 
2012-09-25 03:39:05 AM  

CrackpipeCardozo: Lee Jackson Beauregard: THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT VOLUNTARILY.

Not under the status quo, but I don't think it's completely outside the realm of possibility for financial institutions to take on some degree of self-imposed restraint. The current state of irresponsibility is due to a cause/effect relationship of some sort, but causal changes can result in different effects.


And the one billion dollar question is...
Will those changes make them more money? Regardless of any other exterior changes in the economy of the nation, the planet, the universe, whatever. Drought, famine, pestilence, war, the second coming of the messiah, a mile-wide meteor striking the earth, the polar ice caps melting and inundating the planet with an extra 60 meters of water, none of that matters.

All the matters is "Will - those - changes - make - the - bank - more - money?
The answer to this query will determine their actions, and nothing else.

This is why they farked the whole world when they did what they did. This is why they cannot be trusted to self-regulate.

Ever.

This one question.
 
2012-09-25 04:22:05 AM  
Pawlenty: Banks should self regulate.

The rest of us: Yeah, but they don't so STFU, lobby-boi!

And we're done.
 
2012-09-25 05:19:55 AM  
How about we outlaw lending at interest? Its not lending, but compounding interest that will inevitably crash the global economy.
 
2012-09-25 06:51:50 AM  

Diogenes: 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.

I like this game. With Romney's "self-deportation" plan we can also get rid of ICE.

Think of the savings!


Hell: reasonable people don't resort to murder, either, so......

/This is the fallacy of libertarianism: people are not reasonable beings.
 
2012-09-25 08:27:38 AM  
Lobbyist -- American for bribe
 
2012-09-25 09:07:23 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Oh, and don't forget the racist angle that you are bringing up.


Your concern is noted.
 
2012-09-25 09:14:33 AM  

impaler: former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty said he would seek a "refinement" of the Dodd-Frank Act, but also added that banks need to do more to regulate themselves.

We tried that in 2004.

The Securities and Exchange Commission can blame itself for the current crisis. That is the allegation being made by a former SEC official, Lee Pickard, who says a rule change in 2004 led to the failure of Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, and Merrill Lynch.

The SEC allowed five firms - the three that have collapsed plus Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley - to more than double the leverage they were allowed to keep on their balance sheets and remove discounts that had been applied to the assets they had been required to keep to protect them from defaults.

Link

Agency's '04 Rule Let Banks Pile Up New Debt


AKA: Drawing and Redrawing. I believe the term Adam Smith used was "Ruinous Financial Practice".
 
2012-09-25 09:53:22 AM  

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


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

Interesting you should bring up '08 and '09. One theory as to why he won't release his tax returns is that Mitt Romney may have made millions by shorting the housing bubble. (scroll down to 5) Did Romney Make a "Bet Against America"?)



wow, that would be a show stopper if it could be confirmed. Obama wouldn't even have to campaign anymore. he could just sit back and wait for the election and give his speech after his landslide win.
 
2012-09-25 10:07:49 AM  

justaguy516: skullkrusher: Sure, as long as they leave the Federal Reserve, practice 100% reserve banking, do not deal in government issued MBSs and make it clear to customers that any deposits are NOT backed by the full faith and credit of the US government. No takers? Ok, then. No.

I think you mean 50% reserve banking.


No, 100%. Claims that a customer can make tomorrow must be available tomorrow.
 
2012-09-25 06:18:11 PM  

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


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

Interesting you should bring up '08 and '09. One theory as to why he won't release his tax returns is that Mitt Romney may have made millions by shorting the housing bubble. (scroll down to 5) Did Romney Make a "Bet Against America"?)


wow, that would be a show stopper if it could be confirmed. Obama wouldn't even have to campaign anymore. he could just sit back and wait for the election and give his speech after his landslide win.


Rmoney would probably need to leave the country on the November 6th, when he no longer had secret service protection... chased by crowds of underwater and foreclosed former houseowners numbering in the thousands...
 
2012-09-25 07:17:20 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: whidbey: I was going to suggest we bring back the age old tradition of tarring and feathering for Pawlenty, but whatever.

Tarring and Feathering was a form of vigilante justice to punish Republican African Americans in the post-bellum South.

Pathetic that people don't respect the rule of law and instead want to resort to vigilante justice.

Oh, and don't forget the racist angle that you are bringing up.



Ah yes, the old "Democrats are the real racists" line

That's old and tired man. Debunked in every way.

Ironically minorities were still Democrat in the south, so your propaganda doesn't even hold up to reality.
 
2012-09-25 08:37:38 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: 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?

[zazenlife.com image 550x424]


Yeah, like that.
 
Displayed 195 of 195 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report