Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Not exactly the part I was referring to when mentioning the high likelihood of you being on some form of narcotics.Yeah. I tried explaining that to @Chadstroma and he thought I was high.@proninja linked a similar story upthread.
I posted some stuff in the GOP thread. There were some things from the interview that sort of sounded like it may relate to Cruz (possibly Trump).
Sounds like Bernie is going to use the powers afforded under Dodd-Frank to have the Federal Reserve analyze the large financial institutions to find out if they are too big to fail, in order to ensure we do not face a similar situation as 2008 when we had to bail them out to avoid systemic market failure. Perhaps he would have the Fed do these tests annually. Maybe he could name them. Call them "stress tests" or something like that.
The Bernie phone bank in my building last night was 12 people over 50. That was a first.
He didn't. Nothing really noteworthy in that exchange except that the interviewer is very confused about the differences between the Fed, FDIC, and Treasury
The annual stress tests have nothing to do with determining if a bank is too big to fail
Probably because what he's talking about has nothing to do with the question you asked.
To be fair, Bernie doesn't really appear to know what he's talking about here either.
At least we got competition in the cable industry here. The local gov't bought/got the bankrupt Adelphia homes and now they rape us worse than TW.
I think one of the aspects that is lost in breaking up the banks, is that it likely creates more jobs than it loses.
Iirc there are some laws/regulations that hamstring many cities from making free Wi-Fi for their citizens.
It's not the banks but the fact that developers are in the business of making the most profit possible and that normally isn't from building affordable housing.
Dodd Frank allows the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve to require a financial institution to sell off assets to an unaffiliated company. To break itself up.
Well the state and fed gov't have mucked this one up too picking and choosing who can be where/when and how. No idea how they'd untangle that mess. These companies lay all the hardwire down, set up all the infrastructure (because the governments wouldn't) and now expect that they get the control of the area. I don't disagree with the expectation given the
outlay for all the hardwiring, but it leads to what we're seeing now, which is unfortunate.
It's a complicated problem, and I think one of the key problems is that local residents are much more engaged in zoning and approval of new developments than they used to be, thanks to the internet. You mention affordable housing in Chicago and you'll have a community meeting full of residents crying about the downfall of their neighborhood. For developers, it's easier to build mid-range, low-density SFHs than condo buildings or apartments. On the plus side, the city has done away with the restrictive Section 8 designation, so any development is Section 8 eligible. But still, NIMBYs are a huge factor in why more affordable housing doesn't get done.
This is true if the only value you bring to your job is a diploma.Yeah but your college degree will be diluted.
The interviewer is also questioning Bernie about a legal issue that can't be well answered, I should also mention. It will be appealed, and regardless I believe the full opinion is currently under seal. As a result, no one can really answer how the MetLife decision affects future regulatory processes in the "too big to fail" context.
No not really. Banks have stepped in to buy houses and turn them to rental properties. They are driving up.rent to unsustainable levels and at the same time they are sitting on credit for smaller developers. They are creating the next bubble. Bass can tell you first hand what is happening in the market as it affects him directly. He has posted on it often here.
There's no way to know obviously, which is why I never claimed that I do- that's what the IMO is for. You're the one who said polling doesn't support my opinion- got a link?
Last polling I saw has Bernie's lead widen in Wisconsin. He needs a double digit win. We'll see if he can get there.
The polls have been posted many times in this thread. The majority of voters seem to be on board with the idea Wall Street is getting over while Main Street suffers and it's time to.end that. That is the impetus behind Sanders run. Evidenced in Hillary's move to.the left on that issue.
So, no link? You can stop being deliberately obtuse now, you know those polls don't cover whether he'd get more or less support if he changed his rhetoric.
I think there actually were a couple that had similar questions. Didn't Free Beacon or someone ask about position on Wall Street in one of its polls? Nevada, maybe? It probably wasn't worded right to get to the exact question, I guess.
Wrong thread but I'd very much like to discuss this if there's a thread for it. The FCC has been a joke on this issue.
Yes attack me because I am not reposting stuff that has been posted many times. You have no empirical evidence to back your opinion. I point that out you come back with nothing but insults. You sure showed me.
![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
Free phone and TV next too?
