Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Mitt Romney and Consumer Protection Regulation

Posted by   + Show Post

 

Column by ADAM LEVIN, Credit.com
Sep. 1, 2012

 

The people who brought you the Great Economic Meltdown of 2008 have a new idea for you --- although if they get their way, you'll never hear about it. In fact, one of the most striking things about the new push to undo the consumer-friendly financial reforms that followed the crash is the open contempt its backers show for American democracy.

Since this week's Republican National Convention will present their carefully orchestrated vision of a perfect unregulated, untaxed world, this might be a good time to revisit America's recent nightmare on Elm Street.

In the waning months of the George W. Bush administration, as American voters were about to choose between Barack Obama and John McCain, the U.S. economy hit a reef the size of Manhattan --- or, more precisely, Wall Street. In the wake of that disaster, two questions were repeated over and over, from coast to coast: How did this happen? How can we make sure it never happens again?

One of the most notable responses to that second question was the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, signed into law by President Obama in 2010. Dodd-Frank brought about the most profound changes in U.S. financial regulation since the Depression-era reforms of the Roosevelt administration. And the comparison is apt --- because without this and other strong corrective measures taken in response to the crisis, the damage to the American economy could have been far worse than it was.

Nevertheless, Dodd-Frank came under heavy attack from the beginning, with some arguing that it goes too far and others insisting that it doesn't go far enough. Dodd-Frank was enacted despite those objections, and with good reason: without it, the foxes on Wall Street were guarding the henhouse --- and the rest of America was getting eaten alive.

But now the regulation-be-damned camp --- represented by the Romney campaign --- has come up with a "fix" that avoids the messiness of political discussion and debate by sidestepping the democratic process entirely. Never mind the inconvenient fact that Dodd-Frank is the law of the land, and that it is the constitutional duty of the executive branch --- to which Republican candidate Mitt Romney aspires --- to put it into practice.

Under the would-be president's plan, agencies would have to eliminate existing regulations in order to implement new ones. Specifically, agencies issuing new regulations would be required to balance the costs of new regulations by identifying offsetting cost reductions in existing regulations. In addition, Congress would have new powers to block regulations that are proposed by the agencies. As Governor Romney's economic plan affirms, "President Romney will issue an executive order instructing all agencies that they must invite Congress to vote up or down on their major regulations and forbidding them from putting those regulations into effect without congressional approval."

Sizing up the probable outcome of such a move, American Banker said: "Even if the courts eventually struck down Romney's proposals --- the policies would likely spark legal challenges --- they could force delays at agencies such as the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau."

Now, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or CFPB, has been a particular target of the deregulation mafia. The CFPB, a watchdog agency created as part of the Dodd-Frank financial reform, has set out to create a protective buffer against the wave of frauds and abuses inflicted by scammers on struggling homeowners and other consumers --- whether those scammers be fly-by-night con artists or Fortune 500 bankers. Its mandate is to stand up for homeowners and for the elderly, for the middle class and the working poor --- in short, for all those Americans who were being shredded in the post-crash meat-grinder while the Wall Street vultures were lining their own pockets.

You might wonder how this could be even slightly controversial. Curbing fraud, promoting financial literacy, stopping predatory lenders, protecting seniors from financial abuse, and keeping hard-working families from being thrown out of their homes --- the mandate of the CFPB sounds like a no-brainer for any democratic society with a commitment to fairness, free markets, and the rule of law.

Then again, if your success depends on back-room deals, insider trading, rigging markets, skirting the law, and flouting the will of the American people, I can see how you might have a problem with it.

And that's where the proposals embedded in Governor Romney's economic plan come in. The Wall Street grave dancers couldn't win fair and square, so they're doing what they do so well: protecting their profits by gaming the system --- then trying to pass off their slash-and-burn practices and over-the-top greed as "conservative."

This is, in reality, nothing but an end-run around democracy --- winning by cheap and probably illegal tactics what was lost in the realm of American political institutions. In my opinion, it shows blatant disdain for the Constitution and spits in the face of the American people.

[Related Article: CFPB Head Faces Tough Questions From Congress]

Romney's economic plan sees it differently: "While not a panacea for the problem of over-regulation, implementation of this conservative principle would go some distance toward halting the relentless growth of the regulatory state."

It's true that "the regulatory state" is not something that Wall Street has ever really warmed up to. Indeed, the ideologues who profited most from the unfettered excesses that led to the crash --- many of whom continue to profit from its aftermath --- have done their best to go on as though nothing had happened. If something did happen, they expect us to believe that it happened on President Obama's watch, probably as a result of his "job-killing" policies. They maintain today --- as they always have and apparently always will --- that the solution to this and every other economic problem is to abandon regulation, screw scrutiny, and give "market forces" (i.e., them) free rein.

In other words, they think we're idiots. They expect us to forget that we were nearly eight years into the George W. Bush presidency when catastrophe hit the U.S. economy. They expect us to forget that Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Washington Mutual, Wachovia, Citigroup, and AIG either failed, were acquired under duress, or were taken over by the government --- all before President Bush left office. They expect us to trust them when they tell us that the cure for the economic crisis that hit us like a freight train in 2008 is --- wait for it --- to return to the same laissez-faire insanity that got us into this mess in the first place.

The truth is that for the past twenty years, under the negligent stewardship of both Republican and Democratic leadership, the American economy, and the investment and credit markets in particular, were heading at top speed into uncharted territory with no one at the wheel. While ideologues of various stripes now repeat ad infinitum that "government is the problem," the truth is that huge firms were making massively risky moves --- with other people's money --- that no one but the insiders knew anything about. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain," they told us. What could go wrong?

Wall Street was at the wheel, with politicians and regulators riding shotgun and the American economy riding blithely in the back. It was one hell of a ride. But when you drive at full speed with your eyes closed, you're going to hit something eventually. We did, and we're living with the consequences.

Of course, when I say "we," I don't mean everyone. Some people wound up with very big bonus checks, not pink slips, in the wake of the 2008 crash. In fact, for the most part, Wall Street and the big banks --- the authors and architects of the crisis --- stepped out of the wreckage without a scratch.

The rest of the country didn't fare so well. Hard-working Americans lost their jobs, their homes, their savings, their health coverage, their retirement funds. Their kids put off going to college, or abandoned the idea entirely. Many of those people --- the lucky ones --- are just beginning to put their lives and their credit back together; others are still looking for that fresh start. These are the people that Wall Street and the big banks sold out once. Now they want to do it again --- and once again, they want to do it in secret, behind our backs.

The open hostility of these people to the idea of a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" really comes down to one thing: utter contempt for "you people." It's shameful. It's intolerable. It must be stopped.

Adam Levin is chairman and cofounder of Credit.com and Identity Theft 911. His experience as former director of the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs gives him unique insight into consumer privacy, legislation and financial advocacy. He is a nationally recognized expert on identity theft and credit.

This work is the opinion of the columnist and in no way reflects the opinion of ABC News


by on Sep. 9, 2012 at 7:41 AM
Replies (41-50):
JonJon
by Ruby Member on Sep. 11, 2012 at 8:06 AM

Private Joke, this post isn't about Fannie Mae or any other manufactured, unsupported claim you want to make.  Discussing Fannie Mae might be interesting.  Go write a post.

I have to admit I find it amusing how you guys like to act like a bunch of spoiled kids in my posts with your countless, inane, "You're not the boss of me and I don't have to behave if I don't want to" replies.  I understand you do this to white people, too, so I can't "cry racism." 

Aw, shucks.

Quoting pvtjokerus:

Oh, and let's not forget the subprime loan crisis that Fannie Mae used to try to improve their reputation. Fannie Mae used its vast lobbying and political clout to get special favors from the government.  While Fannie was overstating its earnings by $200 million on the other hand it was paying $90 million in salary and bonuses to its CEO, Franklin Raines......and who backed Fannie Mae: BARNEY FRANK AND DODD.  Who warned against Fannie Mae:  BUSH.

 

Meadowchik
by Silver Member on Sep. 11, 2012 at 8:07 AM
1 mom liked this

 

Quoting pvtjokerus:

Sorry couldn't get pass laughing at the below line.....especially SINCE THAT DYNAMIC DUO HELP BRING ABOUT THE HOUSING CRASH!

the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, signed into law by President Obama in 2010. Dodd-Frank brought about the most profound changes in U.S. financial regulation

No kidding, and Obama has some of the key players in the crash in top levels of his administration:

"When I first decided to make a documentary about the financial crisis, in late 2008, my biggest question was how to handle Barack Obama. Alas, the answer rapidly became all too clear, as my film “Inside Job” shows in painful detail.

When Barack Obama was elected, he had an unprecedented opportunity to shape American history by bringing the country’s new financial oligarchy under control. Elected on a platform of change and renewal by a nation in crisis and with strong majorities in both houses of Congress, his election celebrated throughout the world, Obama could have done great things. Instead, he gave us more of the same. America will be paying for his decision for a very long time.

The first troubling sign was his personnel appointments: Larry Summers, the man behind nearly every disastrous policy that created the crisis, fresh from making $20 million from hedge funds and investment banks while at Harvard, to become the director of the National Economic Council; Tim Geithner, plucked from the New York Federal Reserve Bank and put in charge at Treasury; as Geithner’s chief of staff, Mark Patterson, a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist; to succeed Geithner at the New York Fed, William C. Dudley, who was chief economist of Goldman Sachs during the housing bubble years; Michael Froman, straight from Citigroup Alternative Investments, which lost billions while its executives became rich, to coordinate economic policy for the National Security Council; Jacob Lew, who was the CFO of Citigroup Alternative Investments, as deputy secretary of state (and now, Obama’s nominee to run the Office of Management and Budget); Gary Gensler, a former Goldman executive who helped ban the regulation of over-the-counter derivatives, to lead the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which regulates derivatives; Mary Shapiro, former head of the Financial Industry Regulatory Agency, the investment banking industry’s self-policing body, to run the Securities and Exchange Commission; reappointing Ben Bernanke. And on and on.

These moves were excused as the understandable actions of a president-elect without a background in finance turning to the most experienced people in a time of crisis. But even then, it was clear that these people had been part of the problem, not the solution, and that other highly competent but untainted candidates were available."

http://www.salon.com/2010/10/27/barack_obama_wall_street/

The most pressing social issue today is the economy

Visit Mitt Romney for President, CafeMom Group

pvtjokerus
by Platinum Member on Sep. 11, 2012 at 8:13 AM
3 moms liked this

Oh, we can have some fun with this one for sure if I had more time.  This gets me fired up each time.  Those that turn a blind eye against O and his Wall Street partners......

Quoting Meadowchik:

 

Quoting pvtjokerus:

Sorry couldn't get pass laughing at the below line.....especially SINCE THAT DYNAMIC DUO HELP BRING ABOUT THE HOUSING CRASH!

the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, signed into law by President Obama in 2010. Dodd-Frank brought about the most profound changes in U.S. financial regulation

No kidding, and Obama has some of the key players in the crash in top levels of his administration.


meriana
by Platinum Member on Sep. 11, 2012 at 11:51 AM
1 mom liked this

It's a bit funny how people talk about Obama and his "wall street partners'. ALL politicians have friends, buddies, associates, etc. etc. involved in all kinds of financial, economic and business interests. It's pretty naive to think that Romney doesn't also have "wall street partners" (being that he was/is a venture capitalist, he probably has far more "partners" in wall street than Obama) or that if elected, he wouldn't appoint those he knows and are like-minded to high positions where they would have the ability to push for certain legislation, etc.

kailu1835
by Ruby Member on Sep. 11, 2012 at 12:17 PM

 For every story like yours I can tell you 10 more where people were able to negotiate with their employer because they valued the work their employees did, and even 10 more where dozens of people lost their job after the unionizing of their company.

Quoting sallys452001:

 

Quoting kailu1835:

 Unions often result in a loss of jobs, and definitely put a halt to any vertical progress outside of your turn, no matter how good of an employee you are.  Most companies pay fair wages... unions don't want fair wages, they want to milk the employer for all they're worth until they go out of business.  I've seen it too many times IRL as well as heard of it too many times.  One thing you have right, companies are in it for the money... when  you push for too much, prices have to go up, or layoffs have to occur for the company to make a profit.  More people will have jobs when employers aren't being forced to pay twice what they can really afford, and can hire more employees AND get more profit than they can under unionization.  Unions had a purpose.  That purpose has been well outlived.

Quoting meriana:

Romney and Ryan have the notion that deregulating the financial and business sectors will "unleash" innovation, etc. and  lowering taxes on corporations, along with pushing for a National Right to Work law,  will magically result in everyone having a job. But then they do believe that Wall Street and Corporations will do business in an honest, fair manner, protect the consumer, pay fair wages, offer benefits, etc. etc. simply because it's the right thing to do. The problem is that those entities and those that run them are in business to make money, as much money as they can regardless, of who pays the consequences of their actions,as long as it's not them. When its a question between honest, fair, doing the right thing and making more money, greed will always win out. That is the reason why consumer protection laws and regulations were put in place to begin with and oh yeah, Unions.

 I am sure glad I had the union backing me when I was being discriminated against. Management makes the huge bucks, not us little people in the union. The union protects our constitutional rights. It would be terrible without unions. A lot of us would not have jobs if it were not for the union negotiating in our behalf. It would be a sad world without those who look out for the working people. A lot of us probably would no longer earn enough to survive. The middle class would be a thing of the past for a whole lot of us!

 

 

babiesbabybaby development

kailu1835
by Ruby Member on Sep. 11, 2012 at 12:20 PM

 We have laws in place regarding how many hours a person can work.  As far as how much you will be paid, um, YEAH!  I would not walk into a place, and say "I will work for you for X amount of dollars or I walk."  The employer says "I have a job, and this is how much I can pay.  Do you want to work here?"  That is the way it's supposed to be.  As for the rest, there are laws regarding most of that stuff. 

Quoting meriana:

 

Quoting kailu1835:

 Unions often result in a loss of jobs, and definitely put a halt to any vertical progress outside of your turn, no matter how good of an employee you are.  Most companies pay fair wages... unions don't want fair wages, they want to milk the employer for all they're worth until they go out of business.  I've seen it too many times IRL as well as heard of it too many times.  One thing you have right, companies are in it for the money... when  you push for too much, prices have to go up, or layoffs have to occur for the company to make a profit.  More people will have jobs when employers aren't being forced to pay twice what they can really afford, and can hire more employees AND get more profit than they can under unionization.  Unions had a purpose.  That purpose has been well outlived.

Quoting meriana:

Romney and Ryan have the notion that deregulating the financial and business sectors will "unleash" innovation, etc. and  lowering taxes on corporations, along with pushing for a National Right to Work law,  will magically result in everyone having a job. But then they do believe that Wall Street and Corporations will do business in an honest, fair manner, protect the consumer, pay fair wages, offer benefits, etc. etc. simply because it's the right thing to do. The problem is that those entities and those that run them are in business to make money, as much money as they can regardless, of who pays the consequences of their actions,as long as it's not them. When its a question between honest, fair, doing the right thing and making more money, greed will always win out. That is the reason why consumer protection laws and regulations were put in place to begin with and oh yeah, Unions.

 

 

There are some bad Unions, no one is disputing that but that could also have a lot to do with the members of the Union not attending meetings and staying on top of what the Union reps are doing. The Union is, after all, the workers themselves. It's kind of like Voting. If you don't vote, you'd better be prepared to accept what you end up with. If Union member don't attend meetings, then they don't get good representation.

As far as Unions not being needed, well if they didn't exist, then the companies would be telling you how much they'll pay you, how many hours a week you'll work, etc. etc. and there'd be nothing you could do about it. Oh and they could fire you at any time and wouldn't really even need a reason. As you said, companies are in business to make as much money as they can, the workers are simply a means to an end. The guys at the top really don't care if the average employee can provide for their family. If the Unions all went away it wouldn't be too awfully long before wages dropped and benefits became non-existant, things like maturnity leave. Sure, one could always go work for another company but they'd all be pretty much the same.

As for Unions being greedy....there's a billion dollar company out here that at every contract tries to LOWER worker wages and TAKE AWAY benefits. When the Union strikes, it's to keep what they already have. At the same time the company tries to take away from the workers, they grant raises and huge bonuses to the top execs. So who's REALLY the greedy entity? The Union for trying to keep what they have already or the company for wanting to take away from the workers to give to the execs.

 


 

babiesbabybaby development

grandmab125
by Gold Member on Sep. 11, 2012 at 3:53 PM
2 moms liked this


Quoting JonJon:

This is the first you've used the word intimidation.  If I meant to intimidate, I might be upset at your alleging I have failed.  It's a stereotype that black people are intimidating and that intimidating is something we like to do.  That's part of the whole, "Black people can't communicate like normal people do" line of stereotyping.  It's right up there with, "You don't like (or can't handle) it when people disagree you" or "You're angry because you can't have things your way" or "Take that chip off your shoulder" among other manufactured lies about how difficult it is to talk sense to a black person. 

I just want to have a reasonable discussion with reasonable people who know how to stay on track and be civil.  You don't seem to want to be one of those people.

I've already said you can stay if you can act like a grownup.  I tell you that every time you try to hijack my posts.

Quoting grandmab125:

 

Quoting JonJon:

I don't like it when anyone tries to circument my topic.

This post is about Romney.  Can't defend him, get to steppin'.

It's not all that hard to create your own post where you can let mayhem ensue.  I prefer order. 

Quoting grandmab125:

 

Quoting JonJon:

Oh, wait; this post is about ROMNEY, not Obama.  There are plenty of posts generated to defame the President.  CG comes up with five or six a day. 

I'm sure you've contributed to all of them, foregoing anything to support what you write which is so much propaganda without links to reputable sites that prove what you're writing.

Quoting grandmab125:

 

Quoting JonJon:

 

Quoting grandmab125:

 

Quoting JonJon:

 But that article isn't ABOUT the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, as witnessed by the little blurb that says, "See related article" then lists the Act.

It's a law, not a bill.

And this post is about how Romney will do away with regulating banks.  You'll be on-topic if you can find where he says he has no intention of doing things to end-run the law.

This bill is precisely a major reason for him wanting to change a lot of the laws hindering banks, businesses, etc.  I am not off topic, as the whole article was in support of Dodd - Frank Bill.  I merely posted an article that pointed out the problems with that bill.

You do realize, don't you, that it was Bill Clinton who started the whole sub prime mess when he signed a bill allowing bundling, oh and don't forget he also struck down the Glass/Stagal Act, that kept savings banks and regular banks under separate investment rules.  Then Freddie May and Fannie Mac were up to their ears in sub prime mortgages, and all the while Barnie Frank claiming they were in a solid position.

It's a law; and Romney believes he can change laws to suit himself and his fellow businessmen who also don't want to abide by the laws to keep them in check.

THAT is why businessmen shouldn't hold the keys to the Oval Office.  Bush was a businessman; he brought this country to the brink of a true depression.  Romney wants to pick up where Bush left off.

You only like it when Obama changes Congressional laws you agree with.  Did you forget about the end run around Congress on allowing 800,000 young illegal immigrants to stay here, get work permits, etc.   HIs decision to not enforce deportation, except for violent criminals.  You do realize, don't you, that only Congress has the power to make laws about immigration....not the President.

Then to get around a lot of our laws, he cherry picks which ones he will have DOJ enforce or not enforce.  (1)  He won't defend DOMA in lawsuits filed at state levels, because he thinks it's unconstitutional.

(2) Won't prosecute medical MJ users or suppliers in states where it's legal, despite that the state laws contradict federal law.

(3)  Announced a change in language of the laws on Internet gambling....legalizing it...even though the Wire Act of 1961, bars betting across state lines using telecommunications devices and the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which bans American banks from processing payments to online accounts  (some payback for Wall Street donors here).

(4)  By Fiat, Sec. of Ed, Arne Duncan granted waivers to 10 states, freeing them from strict requirements of the No Child Left Behind law.

(5)  Issued work waivers to the states against the Welfare Reform Act.


 

 

Your rant is about Romney wanting to change some of the banking and corporate laws.  I was merely pointing out that your special one already did an end run round Congress when he couldn't get his way, and issues orders through the DOJ to ignore other laws.  You just don't like it when you get called on something.  And, I don't give a crap if you don't believe me.  Do a little research yourself before you accuse me of not knowing my facts.

 

I already told you before:  (l) You don't intimidate me...and (2) You don't tell me where and when I can post.

 

You can stop your usual bloviating.  I knew the "black" thing was going to come in here somewhere.  You're a bullying control freak, and it has nothing to do with you being black....it's your nasty personality.  And, I've already told you, you can't tell me where I can post.

Since you really don't read my posts, just cherry pick some of the stuff, you probably missed the first line, where I said that "this is probably why Romney wants to change some of the banking and corporate laws", ergo, that's my defense of Romney.  I didn't and still don't see the need to repeat everything pointed out in the article about the restrictive laws under the Dodd-Frank Bill....which is pretty much all your original post ranted about.

And once again, you said Romney can't change a law, and I proceeded to prove you wrong, and showed you how Obama gets around the laws, or did an end run around Congress on immigration (remember, only Congress has the power to change immigration laws).

So, get over yourself.  Your opinions are nowhere nearly as important as you seem to think them to be.

You just get pissed off when some one doesn't agree with you and/or proves you wrong.  So, live with it.

grandma B

grandmab125
by Gold Member on Sep. 11, 2012 at 3:57 PM
1 mom liked this


Quoting pvtjokerus:

Sigh.....why is it everytime I come into a post that you are connected to, I always, always see you trashing or insulting someone.  Sad, sad, sad.

Quoting JonJon:

This is the first you've used the word intimidation.  If I meant to intimidate, I might be upset at your alleging I have failed.  I just want to have a reasonable discussion with reasonable people who know how to be civil.  You're not one of those people.

I've already said you can stay if you can act like a grownup.  I tell you that every time you try to hijack my posts.

Quoting grandmab125:

 

Quoting JonJon:

I don't like it when anyone tries to circument my topic.

This post is about Romney.  Can't defend him, get to steppin'.

It's not all that hard to create your own post where you can let mayhem ensue.  I prefer order. 

Quoting grandmab125:

 

Quoting JonJon:

Oh, wait; this post is about ROMNEY, not Obama.  There are plenty of posts generated to defame the President.  CG comes up with five or six a day. 

I'm sure you've contributed to all of them, foregoing anything to support what you write which is so much propaganda without links to reputable sites that prove what you're writing.

Quoting grandmab125:

 

Quoting JonJon:

 

Quoting grandmab125:

 

Quoting JonJon:

 But that article isn't ABOUT the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, as witnessed by the little blurb that says, "See related article" then lists the Act.

It's a law, not a bill.

And this post is about how Romney will do away with regulating banks.  You'll be on-topic if you can find where he says he has no intention of doing things to end-run the law.

This bill is precisely a major reason for him wanting to change a lot of the laws hindering banks, businesses, etc.  I am not off topic, as the whole article was in support of Dodd - Frank Bill.  I merely posted an article that pointed out the problems with that bill.

You do realize, don't you, that it was Bill Clinton who started the whole sub prime mess when he signed a bill allowing bundling, oh and don't forget he also struck down the Glass/Stagal Act, that kept savings banks and regular banks under separate investment rules.  Then Freddie May and Fannie Mac were up to their ears in sub prime mortgages, and all the while Barnie Frank claiming they were in a solid position.

It's a law; and Romney believes he can change laws to suit himself and his fellow businessmen who also don't want to abide by the laws to keep them in check.

THAT is why businessmen shouldn't hold the keys to the Oval Office.  Bush was a businessman; he brought this country to the brink of a true depression.  Romney wants to pick up where Bush left off.

You only like it when Obama changes Congressional laws you agree with.  Did you forget about the end run around Congress on allowing 800,000 young illegal immigrants to stay here, get work permits, etc.   HIs decision to not enforce deportation, except for violent criminals.  You do realize, don't you, that only Congress has the power to make laws about immigration....not the President.

Then to get around a lot of our laws, he cherry picks which ones he will have DOJ enforce or not enforce.  (1)  He won't defend DOMA in lawsuits filed at state levels, because he thinks it's unconstitutional.

(2) Won't prosecute medical MJ users or suppliers in states where it's legal, despite that the state laws contradict federal law.

(3)  Announced a change in language of the laws on Internet gambling....legalizing it...even though the Wire Act of 1961, bars betting across state lines using telecommunications devices and the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which bans American banks from processing payments to online accounts  (some payback for Wall Street donors here).

(4)  By Fiat, Sec. of Ed, Arne Duncan granted waivers to 10 states, freeing them from strict requirements of the No Child Left Behind law.

(5)  Issued work waivers to the states against the Welfare Reform Act.


 

 

Your rant is about Romney wanting to change some of the banking and corporate laws.  I was merely pointing out that your special one already did an end run round Congress when he couldn't get his way, and issues orders through the DOJ to ignore other laws.  You just don't like it when you get called on something.  And, I don't give a crap if you don't believe me.  Do a little research yourself before you accuse me of not knowing my facts.

 

I already told you before:  (l) You don't intimidate me...and (2) You don't tell me where and when I can post.

 

 

That would be because she is a self avowed control freak, and enjoys belittling people with endless prattle.

grandma B

JonJon
by Ruby Member on Sep. 11, 2012 at 5:49 PM

I wonder why people seem to want to act as if my being proud to be black is a bad thing and why my pointing out the inaccuracies of stereotypes is a bad thing.  Most people would say, "I didn't mean to stereotype you."

Every reputable economist at every reputable site says if Romney gets to implement his plans, it will be disastrous for the country.  Banks must be regulated.  The fraud and stealing has to stop.

Quoting grandmab125:

 

You can stop your usual bloviating.  I knew the "black" thing was going to come in here somewhere.  You're a bullying control freak, and it has nothing to do with you being black....it's your nasty personality.  And, I've already told you, you can't tell me where I can post.

Since you really don't read my posts, just cherry pick some of the stuff, you probably missed the first line, where I said that "this is probably why Romney wants to change some of the banking and corporate laws", ergo, that's my defense of Romney.  I didn't and still don't see the need to repeat everything pointed out in the article about the restrictive laws under the Dodd-Frank Bill....which is pretty much all your original post ranted about.

And once again, you said Romney can't change a law, and I proceeded to prove you wrong, and showed you how Obama gets around the laws, or did an end run around Congress on immigration (remember, only Congress has the power to change immigration laws).

So, get over yourself.  Your opinions are nowhere nearly as important as you seem to think them to be.

You just get pissed off when some one doesn't agree with you and/or proves you wrong.  So, live with it.

 

JonJon
by Ruby Member on Sep. 11, 2012 at 5:52 PM

 Not about unions, kailu, though I think it would be good to have a post about them.  The topic deserves a post dedicated to it.  I might have a word or two to share, myself.

Quoting kailu1835:

 We have laws in place regarding how many hours a person can work.  As far as how much you will be paid, um, YEAH!  I would not walk into a place, and say "I will work for you for X amount of dollars or I walk."  The employer says "I have a job, and this is how much I can pay.  Do you want to work here?"  That is the way it's supposed to be.  As for the rest, there are laws regarding most of that stuff. 

Quoting meriana:

 

Quoting kailu1835:

 Unions often result in a loss of jobs, and definitely put a halt to any vertical progress outside of your turn, no matter how good of an employee you are.  Most companies pay fair wages... unions don't want fair wages, they want to milk the employer for all they're worth until they go out of business.  I've seen it too many times IRL as well as heard of it too many times.  One thing you have right, companies are in it for the money... when  you push for too much, prices have to go up, or layoffs have to occur for the company to make a profit.  More people will have jobs when employers aren't being forced to pay twice what they can really afford, and can hire more employees AND get more profit than they can under unionization.  Unions had a purpose.  That purpose has been well outlived.

Quoting meriana:

Romney and Ryan have the notion that deregulating the financial and business sectors will "unleash" innovation, etc. and  lowering taxes on corporations, along with pushing for a National Right to Work law,  will magically result in everyone having a job. But then they do believe that Wall Street and Corporations will do business in an honest, fair manner, protect the consumer, pay fair wages, offer benefits, etc. etc. simply because it's the right thing to do. The problem is that those entities and those that run them are in business to make money, as much money as they can regardless, of who pays the consequences of their actions,as long as it's not them. When its a question between honest, fair, doing the right thing and making more money, greed will always win out. That is the reason why consumer protection laws and regulations were put in place to begin with and oh yeah, Unions.

 

 

There are some bad Unions, no one is disputing that but that could also have a lot to do with the members of the Union not attending meetings and staying on top of what the Union reps are doing. The Union is, after all, the workers themselves. It's kind of like Voting. If you don't vote, you'd better be prepared to accept what you end up with. If Union member don't attend meetings, then they don't get good representation.

As far as Unions not being needed, well if they didn't exist, then the companies would be telling you how much they'll pay you, how many hours a week you'll work, etc. etc. and there'd be nothing you could do about it. Oh and they could fire you at any time and wouldn't really even need a reason. As you said, companies are in business to make as much money as they can, the workers are simply a means to an end. The guys at the top really don't care if the average employee can provide for their family. If the Unions all went away it wouldn't be too awfully long before wages dropped and benefits became non-existant, things like maturnity leave. Sure, one could always go work for another company but they'd all be pretty much the same.

As for Unions being greedy....there's a billion dollar company out here that at every contract tries to LOWER worker wages and TAKE AWAY benefits. When the Union strikes, it's to keep what they already have. At the same time the company tries to take away from the workers, they grant raises and huge bonuses to the top execs. So who's REALLY the greedy entity? The Union for trying to keep what they have already or the company for wanting to take away from the workers to give to the execs.

 


 

 

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN