Ponderable

Lion Eyes said:
"They" were from out of area. The protesters, the counter protesters were for the most part not even living in Charlottesville.
None of their business.
There are those that believe Father Serra was a Saint. There are those that believe the contrary.
You don't live in Ventura and if you came to Ventura and started to tear down the statue of Junipero Serra, I would expect you to be jailed.
Hope that helps you out Daffy....
Click to expand...
Because people grow and learn, Charlottesville's city council decided, as they should, to remove statues of racist, treasonous murders who divided our country. The newly powerful (thank you, mr. president) alt right decided to come from far and wide to protest, turning a normal process of social progress into an ugly affair. Malcolm X and Adam Clayton Powell are far more deserving of statues than Robert E. Lee.
 
xav10 said:
Because people grow and learn, Charlottesville's city council decided, as they should, to remove statues of racist, treasonous murders who divided our country. The newly powerful (thank you, mr. president) alt right decided to come from far and wide to protest, turning a normal process of social progress into an ugly affair. Malcolm X and Adam Clayton Powell are far more deserving of statues than Robert E. Lee.
Click to expand...
Supreme Court refuses to label Confederate flag emblem unconstitutional

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...confederate_flag_emblem_unconstitutional.html
 
Wez said:
Fake News. It's an agency that protects all Americans, it's not partisan. You're gettin played Chump!
Click to expand...
Government Is Inept At Identifying Risk

A little background. FSOC is an entity created in 2010 by Dodd-Frank, the sweeping financial reform legislation passed in the wake of the 2008 crisis. It is comprised of the heads of various financial regulatory agencies, and is chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury. One of its purposes is to facilitate communication among regulators, helping to give them a complete picture of the financial sector beyond their own territories.

FSOC’s other purpose – and arguably its primary one – is to identify systemic risk and designate certain entities as “systemically important financial institutions” (SIFIs). These SIFIs are then subject to heightened oversight by the Federal Reserve. The idea is that increased oversight will reduce the chances of these companies running into trouble, and thereby obviate the need for bailouts.

In the past, large firms understood with a wink and a nod that Uncle Sam was backstopping their bets.



But the government has not shown itself to be adept at identifying systemic risk. Not in 2008. Not in any of the last eight financial crises, in fact. Even if the coordination among regulators facilitated by FSOC improves the government’s ability to see trouble brewing, it will never have perfect foresight.
 
The bottom line is that there is probably no way for the government to designate firms as “systemically important” without simultaneously creating the guarantee of bailouts later on, should the need arise. As has been argued in several other places, the SIFI designation process not only fails in Dodd-Frank’s stated mission of ending “too big to fail,” but explicitly enshrines it in law.

The FSOC itself need not be disbanded, but if we’re serious about eliminating taxpayer-funded bailouts – and I hope we are – its power to name SIFIs should end.
 
Recommendations and Big Assumptions

The report makes some worthwhile suggestions about the designation process. For example, it recommends that FSOC notify companies earlier in the process, so that they can take measures to address FSOC’s concerns and avoid SIFI designation entirely. Of course, to assume that addressing these issues is a good thing is to assume that FSOC has correctly identified problems in the first place. And that may be a big assumption.

The report also recommends that FSOC “should only designate a company if the expected benefits to financial stability from Federal Reserve supervision and enhanced prudential standards outweigh the costs that designation would impose.” This is a good recommendation but I’m fairly disheartened that it’s one that must be made. Should regulators need to be told that they should only act to make things better, not worse?
 
Wez said:
How does the CFPB become a liberal conspiracy, how doesn't it protect you?
Click to expand...
Pretty telling that the out going director thinks he can name his successor and when that doesn't work they try to sue. Just a bunch of Obama hacks, like the deep state. Way past time for thousands of pink slips.
Bigger government and more regulations are not the answer, as evidence look at the market.
GREAT: GDP Revised Up to 3.3%...
 
Sheriff Joe said:
Pretty telling that the out going director thinks he can name his successor and when that doesn't work they try to sue. Just a bunch of Obama hacks, like the deep state. Way past time for thousands of pink slips.
Bigger government and more regulations are not the answer, as evidence look at the market.
GREAT: GDP Revised Up to 3.3%...
Click to expand...

Nice dodge, I ask again: "How does the CFPB become a liberal conspiracy, how doesn't it protect you?"
 
Wez said:
Nice dodge, I ask again: "How does the CFPB become a liberal conspiracy, how doesn't it protect you?"
Click to expand...
Any agency created by Obama is a liberal conspiracy, no oversight. All they did was close the small banks down so the big banks could steal more from us, picking winners and losers.
I don't want them and I don't need them.
 
Sheriff Joe said:
Any agency created by Obama is a liberal conspiracy, no oversight. All they did was close the small banks down so the big banks could steal more from us, picking winners and losers.
I don't want them and I don't need them.
Click to expand...
You mean the small banks got bought and the owners cashed out for gazillions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top