The President should refuse to sign the Financial Bill if Glass-Steagal isn't

[saracat]

reinstated. That is what he should do if he really intends genuine financial reform. He should come out in support of Senators Feingold and Cantwell who are trying to do the right thing.

[villager]

1. That will join the long list of things this President should do, but won't...

n/t

[SammyWinstonJack]

4. Hope and Change!

:evilgrin:

[Catherina]

2. The bankers said no. End of story n/t

[saracat]

3. Well then, he will prove he doesn't want real finance reform.

Without Glass-Steagall, the reform is a limp biscuit.If there are no teeth, it isn't worth doing, and they had better do it NOW, while they still have a majority.

[Catherina]

7. I think the time for proving that was in the past

We don't want financial reform. France and Germany are pushing a little reform on us about hedge funds and this administration has been kicking and screaming about it.

The last thing you do when you want financial reform is reward the criminals who are messing up your finances.

[RandomThoughts]

6. If the bankers think they have some claim to power

Just take them out, just remove their false claim to power.

That seems pretty simple

They have not made an argument to why they deserve any claim to power, nor why they say they have power. And by both intent and effect they have shown they can not handle it correctly, so by any set of rules, they have no claim to have effects on society.

So they lose it.

I don't see any errors in that conclusion.

And nobody has argued against it, further confirming that conclusion.

So with multiple methods of thought, the bankers with false claims are done.



I doubt people want to live in that world they want, although an unjust world with applied back could still have some fun moments, so there is that, but regardless of effect, the conclusion is pretty simple.

And may they have Peace and love in their strife. :loveya:

[Catherina]

8. In a perfect world

but those SOBs control your home, your 401K, your savings, your life under capitalism. They've got the power and we're too chickenshit to take it away from them.

I don't want the world they want either but who's willing to stop those wolves?

[RandomThoughts]

9. Only because you believe that.

My home is where ever I am, and they do not control that. Nor is my life under false monopoly corrupt Capitalism.

Not sure what 'we' you are part of that thinks that, I will set things right in any way that I can that does not go against my beliefs. Even though I know it is impossible.

Therefore it creates a paradox, and from that paradox comes trust in what I trust in, and with best thoughts the way things should be. So regardless thinking the world can improve, I choose to think things will move to better justice.


I think on some Dr Who Clips, when thinking on lack of justice. It is an easier way to explain it for me, it is like a metaphor of part of it.

The Doctor refuses to destroy, I like that part of the episode.

Rules Applied Back I think Rose will be in the mix, although I do not think it is about a person or many claims in that clip. Not sure how or when it will fit in, but think it means something, not sure exactly what. But it explains many things, those that think they are Gods are wrong, those that think they have power are mistaken, and those that fear emotion and feeling and those in thoughts of nihilism, can not guide society. Notice how people by status are disrespected by the bad emporer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYoLG_iP9Ec

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyfaNnLS0QQ


I think this is an effect of rules applied back, that is best guess at it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxZksQh26RU


With just knowing that the world will move to justice, without knowing the time of the metaphors, things will move to justice.

Nor do I have any ill feelings towards anyone that is a banker or anything like that. It is only the ideologies that are false that get many to turn to suffering and despair that is what needs to be removed. And there are probably many mostly good bankers also, so it is not actually about bankers.


Humanity and dignity, emotion and feeling, justice and compassion, even with faults, is part of what people are, and should not be hated.

Come As You Are. I think on this song Do you see the paradox, it is the same one as the Doctor saying no.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vabnZ9-ex7o

[Catherina]

10. I don't mean to be harsh but that's too much wishful fairy dust for me n/t

[RandomThoughts]

11. As it is for many people, not unusual at all. no problem with that.

But if you do not dream it, you can not think it, and if you do not think it, how can it happen?


I do understand people think and feel in different ways, and do not think your choices are worse or better, just different. And in your own way you will do what you think is best.

:hug:

No hard feelings, just trying to express thoughts on the topic, and thoughts on thoughts other people have had.

[RandomThoughts]

12. I guess I have to explain my thoughts on that episode.

Whatever metaphors a person has, and their is bias in that film, or a belief system within it.

But it still speaks of a good source, in that clip the doctor. He was trying to rescue, then he refused to kill to the point of death.

But the point is the doctor saying no, and then talking about destroying the daleks goes against that concept, the doctor can not be a destroyer, that is the paradox created.

So how is that paradox solved, by the doctor refusing to kill. But that just solves the doctor paradox, and is what we are told in the concept of the just son not killing the father but protecting the father from bad. Because the imbalance still exist as the good source is threatened by concepts of bad, without the counter to that.


Then the bad wolf creates itself, and yea I understand the concept and where it is bad, but it is the effect of bad done, and creation of rules applied back.

Basically treating people badly without justice creates that same effect put back on people, because the doctor can not do it, it is done by the creation of bad, bad.

So if a person does bad, to create bad, that bad will kill what made it, the idea of son killing the father in doctrines of many destruction. What you create will be what is there when you get older, if you create bad, bad will be what you get. In the same way if you create justice you will get justice.

So should you create good with justice or bad and then reap that same bad when rules get applied back.

The song is the contradiction, saying that a person is innocent and has not done any bad, while actually swearing they are not of light and truth, which is what bad does when it claims some role it does not have a reason to have. But the person is good while also saying he is bad, And then the effect is the gun of light and truth they do not have and do have, ends up doing them in by rules applied back by something they created with there bad action. No offense to singer, it is outside of that context, and not about the singer.

The doctor could not, nor would he hurt anything, but to protect that ideal of compassion and justice, what is created from bad destroys bad. All destruction is self destruction, and rules applied back is how people end up reaping what they have done, either now or in the after.

But anyway, I find the show interesting, and when I think about claims of righteousness with questionable action, I think on that episode. And to the people that think every clip is the meaning they want it to mean, that is your thoughts on it. Not worse or better, just different.

So the paradox is, a just person doing bad, a good thought saying it is not good, or a person requiring just action not getting it. All create a paradox and an imbalance that creates something to fix that imbalance.

It explains how some damage to a part of existence is not bad, but a needed break up of bad caused by the actions of that bad. It solves the problem of the claim that something can not be of good and do something that causes some hardship for someone even if that person deserves it, like breaking up corporations. It is not bad from the people breaking it up, it is the bad from the group being broken up funneled through a person fixing the imbalance. Hence how good can end up creating justice that can cause hardship, since it really is the bad causing it, and the good is only the administrator of that flow of self destruction.

Or to make it simpler, mirror held up to Medusa.

[chill_wind]

5. K & R. n/t

[ShortnFiery]

13. Excellent suggestion saracat. :-) eom

[JimWis]

14. K&R

[laughingliberal]

15. It would seem wise to look back on decades where this type of crisis did not occur...

and ask what rules were in place which prevented this. Then reinstate those rules. Simple. Only becomes complicated when you let the criminals have a say in making the laws.

[waiting for hope]

16. K&R

I wish that would happen, but as usual, the excuse will be "this is the best we could do" .. sad.

[rudy23]

17. What the hell would ever make him start caring about what WE think?

This month has shown us a LOT about where he stands.

[femrap]

18. K and R

Glass Steagall never should have been outlawed in the first place. I remember the day back in 1999....I was ranting then and I'll rant again!

[mitchtv]

19. he should do a lot of things

but he isn't about to, cosmetic is the best you'll get from ths Pres

[AllentownJake]

20. K&R

[Dinger]

21. K & R # 16 (nt)

[freddie mertz]

22. K & R. Thus should be a no-brainer.

But these days, who knows?

[gateley]

23. What I found astounding is that so many of these people were willing to sign

on without reinstating Glass-Steagal. As someone else said, it's a no-brainer, a good starting point. I get so fed up with the POLITICS of it all, it's just the right thing to do. Recommend!

[gateley]

24. Thom Hartmann put it perfectly -- Ronnie Reagan gave the bankers the keys to

the kingdom, and we have to figure out how to get them back. This is a MUST DO! (I feel so strongly that I just had to come back and post this additional response.)

And oh yeah -- Fuck the Republicans!

[Little Star]

25. k&r

[ProSense]

26. The President is going to do no such thing

Glass-Steagall reinstatement alone doesn't address the problems.

Merkley-Levin is what is needed.

[saracat]

27. Really? Compare the two. It isn't likely he will do either but I trust Roosevelt more.

[scheming daemons]

28. So good things "B", "C", and "D" shouldn't be done unless good thing "A" is done too?

A good bill doesn't have to be all or nothing.


All of the provisions in this bill are good things. So let's sign it.


It doesn't preclude Glass-Steagal from being reinstated as a separate bill.

[saracat]

29. Pffft! Same story as HCR. Ya got nothin. Compromise needs to end.

Why do the GOP get solid bills and we get watered down nothing so to say we passed something? They never compromise yet we put our heads up their butts.

[SpartanDem]

32. Define solid bills

social security isn't privatize, Bush tax cuts aren't permanemt and no ban on gay marriage the Bush years has their share of legislative failures/ watering down.

[saracat]

33. Funny, we are still in Iraq AND Afghanistan. We passed FISA and renewed the Patriot Act.

We reinforced the Hyde Amendment with an executive order. We actually reinforce their bills! And there was DOMA. and we expanded the office of Faith Based Initiatives. Our stuff is half assed and has no guts to them. NO ban on Gay Marriage? Seriously? Has Gay Marriage been legalized by the Feds? I must have missed it !And did we reverse those tax cits? I don't think so!

[SpartanDem]

35. How does this refute your point about them always getting what they want

as pointed out those example even when the GOP was in the majority they didn't get everything they wanted.

[saracat]

36. They mostly did. You refuted nothing. They have NOT approved Gay marriage and it is effectively

banned, they got the legislation they wanted passed.We went to War and are still there. They have never compromised with us.We always roll over. We are the majority and we STILL roll over. We basically passed their HCR.They never would have done that for us. My point was they NOT only got their legislation passed, we expanded on it. And we ARE talking about limiting the entitlements so don't be too cocky about those. It would be ironic if the hits to Social Security and Medicare are during a Dem Admin. The only reson they didn't take a hit during the GOP admin is they didn't really want to do it.

[pundaint]

37. Good idea, then congress can get back to fixing the historic health care reform. Fool us once shame

on you, fool us repeatedly, it's the lesser of two evils.

[SpartanDem]

30. Glass Steagal isn't the end all be all of reform

G-S wouldn't have stopped the actions of Goldman, Lehman Brothers, AIG and many other as they weren't commercial banks the derivative reforms the Volcker rule and ending the conflict of interest between credit rating agencies and those that they rate get much to matter with this crisis.

[upi402]

31. Yes, he should be an actual Democrat

I agree. And there should be an opposition party for politicians like that to run in. And a free media too. And fair elections. Yep.

[TheKentuckian]

34. Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

Of course he won't and we'll roll out the old "Mission Accomplished" sign and talk about the most sweeping piece of financial reform since the New Deal while omitting it is nearly the only financial reform since then other than the S&L clean up, the rest has been digging this very hole.

It is nearly treasonous levels of irresponsibility to leave the nation's economy in such a condition. This is no different than us being attacked by a foreign invasion fleet and refusing to take the necessary actions to defend the country. Well, except more damage is probably being done than a conventional attack force could serve up.