Why the bankers can keep doing

[Skipjack]

their dirty business.
They have support in both political parties. A friend of mine just pointed this story out to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
Proofs the point that I keep making about the issue that the US has with essentially only having two political parties. No the teaparty does not count, because it is still essentially republicans, just calling themselves by a different name.
Anyway, this story makes me glad that McCain did not get elected president. He is obviously dirty! He would have handed even more of the country over to his friends, the bankers.

[Diogenes]

their dirty business.
They have support in both political parties. A friend of mine just pointed this story out to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
Proofs the point that I keep making about the issue that the US has with essentially only having two political parties. No the teaparty does not count, because it is still essentially republicans, just calling themselves by a different name.
Anyway, this story makes me glad that McCain did not get elected president. He is obviously dirty! He would have handed even more of the country over to his friends, the bankers.

Sometimes I think you are sensible. Other times I think you are a nitwit. McCain was only added to the list of the "Keating five" at the absolute insistence of the Democrats because the fact that so many people that took money from Keating WERE Democrats. Investigation after investigation kept concluding that John McCain had done nothing wrong, but the Democrats on the Senatorial investigating committee absolutely refused to exonerate him because they did not want the scandal used against them. By keeping a Republican on the list, they kept the Republican party from beating the drum of Democrat Corruption. It was a vicious and vile political tactic to prevent them from getting their deserved comeuppance.

All of the above is from memory. I am not going to bother looking up the info for you because it is a waste of my time. You haven't learned the first dozen times I provided references.

What's more, why an Austrian (and I don't care that you are married to an American) keeps interjecting himself ignorantly into American Politics is one of the reasons I sometimes regard you as a nit-wit.

You base your conclusions on bad information, and then urge everyone to heed it!

[Skipjack]

You base your conclusions on bad information, and then urge everyone to heed it!

We all are guilty of that ever so often, hmm Diogenes?

[Skipjack]

What's more, why an Austrian (and I don't care that you are married to an American) keeps interjecting himself ignorantly into American Politics is one of the reasons I sometimes regard you as a nit-wit.

You really have to ask that? Really? Because for some weird insensible reason I do actually care for that country and its people and that is not just because it affects also my economy, when things go to hell in the US...
Also, you missunderstood the purpose of my post. I was not just going after the republican in that group but also and especially after the democrats. However, even if McCain was really not involved with that one, I am sure that plenty of republican were involved with some other mess somewhere else.

[Diogenes]

You base your conclusions on bad information, and then urge everyone to heed it!

We all are guilty of that ever so often, hmm Diogenes?

Nope, i never make mistakes. One time I thought I did, but I was wrong.

[Diogenes]

What's more, why an Austrian (and I don't care that you are married to an American) keeps interjecting himself ignorantly into American Politics is one of the reasons I sometimes regard you as a nit-wit.

You really have to ask that? Really? Because for some weird insensible reason I do actually care for that country and its people and that is not just because it affects also my economy, when things go to hell in the US...
Also, you missunderstood the purpose of my post. I was not just going after the republican in that group but also and especially after the democrats. However, even if McCain was really not involved with that one, I am sure that plenty of republican were involved with some other mess somewhere else.

There are a lot of things I don't like about the Republicans, particular the Rockefeller wing of the party, but the mistakes they make are as lightning bugs to lightning compared to the Democrats. I have been keeping up with American politics for a long time, and I have likewise been studying history for a long time, and I can show example after example where Democrats have steered the country into a horrible mess time after time after time.

For example, Woodrow Wilson got us into world war I. Had he not done so, the war would have ground to a stalemate, and Germany would never have had to pay those reparations, the massive inflation and job loss would not have happened in it's wake, and the stage would never have been set for World War II.

Wilson was one of those educated Know-it-alls, an "intellectual" too smart for his own good. Had he simply kept his promise to keep America out of the war, we likely would never have developed atom bombs, 50 million people or so would not have died, and a lot of horrible things would not have happened. (China wouldn't have become communist, Eastern Europe would never have been under Soviet Domination, and so on.

Almost everyone who works in the News and Entertainment industries is a Liberal Democrat. Virtually every news story or television show which comes from America was written or edited by extremely Liberal Democrats. It is as if the referees in a football game were members of the Opposing team. Despite all the lies and false stories continuously being spread, the Republicans often manage to overcome and win, but it does not do this nation a service when Democrat propaganda is repeated uncritically.

I suppose I shouldn't blame you, because you just aren't aware of some of this stuff. A person has to keep on top of stories to get at the truth, and then it is sometimes a hit and miss proposition.

Anyways, I apologize for my derogatory comment regarding you.

[Skipjack]

For example, Woodrow Wilson got us into world war I. Had he not done so, the war would have ground to a stalemate, and Germany would never have had to pay those reparations, the massive inflation and job loss would not have happened in it's wake, and the stage would never have been set for World War II.

That was one of the smartest things I have ever heard you say.

Almost everyone who works in the News and Entertainment industries is a Liberal Democrat. Virtually every news story or television show which comes from America was written or edited by extremely Liberal Democrats. It is as if the referees in a football game were members of the Opposing team. Despite all the lies and false stories continuously being spread, the Republicans often manage to overcome and win, but it does not do this nation a service when Democrat propaganda is repeated uncritically.

Oh, I am quite critical of news reports. But e.g. the recent issues with space policies have shown quite clearly that the loyalties of the members of neither party lie with the american people, but rather certain lobbies.
Several republicans are opposing commercial space. Yes they are opposing free competition and free market and private enterprise. The things that they are supposedly supporting so much. Instead they support big government, cost plus contracts, etc (all for big defense contractors). They were not ashamed to be siding with a couple of democrats on this issue as well, all against Obama, whose proposed space policy was probably more libertarian and rational than any I have ever seen before.
In this case, I am actually totally siding with some members of the tea party (tea in space), who do actually support Obamas original space policy plan. The only part where I dont agree with them is when they want to cancel the JWST. I do understand their issues with the project, but mine is that it is a project that does not have any alternatives on the private market and it might therefore make sense to finish it (though I think that the previous management should be fired and a new contract structure should be established).

[hanelyp]

Had the US not developed the atomic bomb, the USSR likely would have gotten it anyway, if a few years later. Without the US as a counterbalance to the Soviet nuke, I suspect history would not have turned out so well.

[Skipjack]

Had the US not developed the atomic bomb, the USSR likely would have gotten it anyway, if a few years later.

Unlikely. The USSR made a huge technological jump foreward thanks to help from the US (GM) which for some reason provided it with the means to overrun Europe.
It only got the nuclear bomb thanks to the spies in the US and a few German scientists that were "acquired" after the end of WW2.

[choff]

Remember S & P, the ratings agency with the bad reputation after 2008 because they gave AAA ratings to crud that municipal governments parked tax money in where they lost 40% value, all the while their buddies were short selling the same stuff.

Then they turned around a few weeks ago and downgraded the US in an effort to restore their credibility, even while the other ratings agencies didn't.

Seems the Justice dept is placing them under investigation.

http://stevenbirnspeaks.wordpress.com/2 ... on-begins/

Now, if I was a US Senator, after the stress of the debt debate, I might feel inclined to hold an investigative hearing, sort of like the type McCarthy had, where they can swear S & P exec's under oath to explain current and past ratings methodology. Who knows, they may discover an error in the downgrade calculation, put the US back to triple A in no time, maybe help arrange a rate cut even?

[Diogenes]

Had the US not developed the atomic bomb, the USSR likely would have gotten it anyway, if a few years later. Without the US as a counterbalance to the Soviet nuke, I suspect history would not have turned out so well.

How on earth can you make that claim? Without Leó Szilárd constantly pushing people to explore the possibility, it would have taken the US probably 30 more years just to develop an atomic pile. The Russians were not even close to the point that German, English and American researchers were in the 1930s.

You need to read up on this issue before you make statements like that. I recommend "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhodes as a primer.

[Diogenes]

Remember S & P, the ratings agency with the bad reputation after 2008 because they gave AAA ratings to crud that municipal governments parked tax money in where they lost 40% value, all the while their buddies were short selling the same stuff.

Then they turned around a few weeks ago and downgraded the US in an effort to restore their credibility, even while the other ratings agencies didn't.

Seems the Justice dept is placing them under investigation.

http://stevenbirnspeaks.wordpress.com/2 ... on-begins/

Now, if I was a US Senator, after the stress of the debt debate, I might feel inclined to hold an investigative hearing, sort of like the type McCarthy had, where they can swear S & P exec's under oath to explain current and past ratings methodology. Who knows, they may discover an error in the downgrade calculation, put the US back to triple A in no time, maybe help arrange a rate cut even?

It has been suggested that the investigation is just another example of Obama's "Chicago Way" politics. A lot of people regard it as a revenge tactic against S&P ( for daring to tell the "Precedent" to stop spending money) more than anything else. National Socialism here we come!

[choff]

Remember S & P, the ratings agency with the bad reputation after 2008 because they gave AAA ratings to crud that municipal governments parked tax money in where they lost 40% value, all the while their buddies were short selling the same stuff.

Then they turned around a few weeks ago and downgraded the US in an effort to restore their credibility, even while the other ratings agencies didn't.

Seems the Justice dept is placing them under investigation.

http://stevenbirnspeaks.wordpress.com/2 ... on-begins/

Now, if I was a US Senator, after the stress of the debt debate, I might feel inclined to hold an investigative hearing, sort of like the type McCarthy had, where they can swear S & P exec's under oath to explain current and past ratings methodology. Who knows, they may discover an error in the downgrade calculation, put the US back to triple A in no time, maybe help arrange a rate cut even?

It has been suggested that the investigation is just another example of Obama's "Chicago Way" politics. A lot of people regard it as a revenge tactic against S&P ( for daring to tell the "Precedent" to stop spending money) more than anything else. National Socialism here we come!

The impression I get is that the case was started in 2008, but it's getting the priority now in light of all thats happened recently. Does the US justice system normally allow politicians to control the course of investigations?

[Diogenes]

Remember S & P, the ratings agency with the bad reputation after 2008 because they gave AAA ratings to crud that municipal governments parked tax money in where they lost 40% value, all the while their buddies were short selling the same stuff.

Then they turned around a few weeks ago and downgraded the US in an effort to restore their credibility, even while the other ratings agencies didn't.

Seems the Justice dept is placing them under investigation.

http://stevenbirnspeaks.wordpress.com/2 ... on-begins/

Now, if I was a US Senator, after the stress of the debt debate, I might feel inclined to hold an investigative hearing, sort of like the type McCarthy had, where they can swear S & P exec's under oath to explain current and past ratings methodology. Who knows, they may discover an error in the downgrade calculation, put the US back to triple A in no time, maybe help arrange a rate cut even?

It has been suggested that the investigation is just another example of Obama's "Chicago Way" politics. A lot of people regard it as a revenge tactic against S&P ( for daring to tell the "Precedent" to stop spending money) more than anything else. National Socialism here we come!

The impression I get is that the case was started in 2008, but it's getting the priority now in light of all thats happened recently. Does the US justice system normally allow politicians to control the course of investigations?

It happened during the Clinton Administration. It may have happened under other administrations as well, but I don't know of any examples. It is my opinion that Democrats have no more respect for the laws of the United States than they have for the laws of reality.

[rjaypeters]

No, politics isn't supposed to influence investigations, but it does.

It is useful, I think, the politically-motivated backlash against S & P is causing them to be investigated for something which should have been looked at carefully years ago.

We all know the investigation is politically-motivated and the point will be especially clear when the other rating agencies are not investigated for inflating the ratings of mortgage-backed assets.