Democrats are just as bad as Republicans

[dank69]

If you believe this you need your head examined.

Republicans attempting to screw the taxpayers again.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Do you honestly believe Obama will sign the bill if it gets past the Senate?

As for your statement, it's true. Both parties are equally bad and do whatever it takes to get reelected rather than what really good for Americans/their constituents.

 

[Genx87]

I noticed so many people were brought up on charges stemming from the 08 crash by a democrat administration our courts are overflowing.

Anybody who believes either of these parties have our best interest needs their head examined.

 

[Tombstone1881]

"Democrats are just as bad as Republicans"

The only people that I have ever known to make such a statement have always turned out to be Republicans or conservative "Independents".

 

[brandonb]

Anybody who believes either of these parties have our best interest needs their head examined.

this

 

[PokerGuy]

I agree with OP , anyone who believes democrats are just as bad as republicans needs to have their heads examined. Obviously, democrats are not just as bad, they are far worse. Unfortunately, both groups suck, but the dems are consistently worse.

For once, OP got it right, though inadvertently

 

[Tombstone1881]

Still, I will take a consumer advocate like Liz Warren over a Swiss Bank tax shelter advocate like Rand Paul any day of the week.

 

[dank69]

I noticed so many people were brought up on charges stemming from the 08 crash by a democrat administration our courts are overflowing.

Anybody who believes either of these parties have our best interest needs their head examined.

Because not prosecuting them is the same as making the activity legal again.

 

[dank69]

I agree with OP , anyone who believes democrats are just as bad as republicans needs to have their heads examined. Obviously, democrats are not just as bad, they are far worse. Unfortunately, both groups suck, but the dems are consistently worse.

For once, OP got it right, though inadvertently

Yes, they are far worse for the people on Wall Street who want to take your money.

 

[PokerGuy]

Yes, they are far worse for the people on Wall Street who want to take your money.

lol, what a naive fool you are. Take a look around you, has there been huge earthshaking changes for wall street with the democrats in power? No. Has obummer brought in the same wall street people into his administration and the sec etc? Yes. Wake up man, the only thing either party cares about is staying in power and lining their pockets.

Further, last I checked, the people "taking my money" aren't those on wall street, they are in DC....

 

[glenn1]

Dodd-Frank wasn't a perfect bill and I'd be fine with some minor changes to it. For example, it doesn't hugely matter if the CFPB is an independent agency or slots under the Fed or another regulator. No strong feelings about bank holding companies having CDOs on their books, they're not uniquely risky for banks to hold. That being said I don't see any huge advantage in legislatively extending the timeline already decided upon.

 

[dank69]

lol, what a naive fool you are. Take a look around you, has there been huge earthshaking changes for wall street with the democrats in power? No. Has obummer brought in the same wall street people into his administration and the sec etc? Yes. Wake up man, the only thing either party cares about is staying in power and lining their pockets.

Further, last I checked, the people "taking my money" aren't those on wall street, they are in DC....

Name one liberal policy that is as bad as letting Wall Street gamble with taxpayer money. Just one. If the Democrats haven't done anything to hurt Wall Street then why do the Republicans feel the need to weaken the Democrats' legislation?

 

[schmuckley]

lol, what a naive fool you are. Take a look around you, has there been huge earthshaking changes for wall street with the democrats in power? No. Has obummer brought in the same wall street people into his administration and the sec etc? Yes. Wake up man, the only thing either party cares about is staying in power and lining their pockets.

Further, last I checked, the people "taking my money" aren't those on wall street, they are in DC....

^this.
The American people would be so much richer with about 1/3 less government
and much better represented without lobbyists.

 

[Genx87]

Because not prosecuting them is the same as making the activity legal again.

It shows they don't give a shit. Seriously think about it. After the crash in 08 it was very apparent some forms of fraud were happening. Yet, not a single person is rotting in prison? afaik not a major indictment from this administration. Just washed their hands of it and moved on. Even that incompetent Bush administration tossed away some of the leaders from Enron, Tyco, and others. Ironically Kozlowski is set to be released in 2 days.

 

[PokerGuy]

Name one liberal policy that is as bad as letting Wall Street gamble with taxpayer money. Just one. If the Democrats haven't done anything to hurt Wall Street then why do the Republicans feel the need to weaken the Democrats' legislation?

Worthless general platitudes. Democrats had complete control of congress, they used that power to push disasters like obummercare and other garbage, but have done absolutely nothing to change wall street. Nor would I expect them to, no matter what hot air they spew pretending otherwise. At the end of the day they are beholden to the powerful money interests just like the republicans are. To pretend otherwise is just being a delusional party hack or just naive.

 

[fskimospy]

It shows they don't give a shit. Seriously think about it. After the crash in 08 it was very apparent some forms of fraud were happening. Yet, not a single person is rotting in prison? afaik not even a major indictment from this administration. Just washed their hands of it and moved on. Even that incompetent Bush administration tossed away some of the fraudsters from Enron, Tyco, and others. Ironically Kozlowski is set to be released in 2 days.

I would say that the behavior of Wall St. says that they don't view it as the Democrats not giving a shit.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/10/democrats-wall-street_n_6445276.html

(forget that it's the huffington post, the chart from the center for responsive politics is what I'm interested in)

If you look at it, between the '08 and '10 data points is when Dodd-Frank passed. I'm sure some of it is political opportunism, but still, Wall St. doesn't seem to be very happy with the Democrats following that.

 

[PokerGuy]

Because not prosecuting them is the same as making the activity legal again.

If you're not going to prosecute people when they break the law, what's the difference if the activity is illegal or not? The truth that you just don't want to hear or accept is that neither party is actually on the side of the 'little guy' against wall street. One side pretends to be more than the other, but neither of them are.

 

[fskimospy]

If you're not going to prosecute people when they break the law, what's the difference if the activity is illegal or not? The truth that you just don't want to hear or accept is that neither party is actually on the side of the 'little guy' against wall street. One side pretends to be more than the other, but neither of them are.

Because we're talking about enforcement actions against banks as an entity, not individuals. Dodd-Frank deals with institutions, not people, so saying because they didn't prosecute people means Dodd-Frank is meaningless is not correct.

By the way I 100% agree that the Obama administration didn't prosecute individuals aggressively enough for their actions after the crash, but they have prosecuted the institutions themselves reasonably well.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Most reactions/responses to criticism against the GOP boil down to:
1) well, the other side is just as bad
2) well, you are bias
3) well, you are just not being a realist
4) well, you are dumb

It's never an acknowledgement of there being something wrong - it is that YOU are wrong for pointing out what is wrong.

Plus, they just don't give a shit. They don't care if they come off as hypocrites. They don't care if they come off as liars. No conservative legitimately feels what they are doing is good - because what they are doing is out of fear - there is no good or bad, it is do whatever needs to be done, to ensure their enemies don't "get them".

If they cared, they would be letting in the very people they fear - so, they have to dismiss and vilify them, as they always do.

 

[shira]

Dodd-Frank wasn't a perfect bill and I'd be fine with some minor changes to it. For example, it doesn't hugely matter if the CFPB is an independent agency or slots under the Fed or another regulator. No strong feelings about bank holding companies having CDOs on their books, they're not uniquely risky for banks to hold. That being said I don't see any huge advantage in legislatively extending the timeline already decided upon.

Yeah. The banks are complaining that SEVEN years to unwind their questionable investments wasn't sufficient.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Mussolini was worse than Franco.

 

[Jaepheth]

6 of one, half a dozen of the other.


I believe in trying to keep a balance of both parties in power (since a third party is currently a non-starter)

That way they should, in theory, counter each others' crazy and only pass things that everyone can live with. (Again, in theory)

 

[emperus]

Do you honestly believe Obama will sign the bill if it gets past the Senate?

As for your statement, it's true. Both parties are equally bad and do whatever it takes to get reelected rather than what really good for Americans/their constituents.

Lol at this statement. You are hoping that Obama who you routinely trash is the voice of reason and vetoes a bill from a party that you hope would one day hold all the levers of power.. Lol.. Yeah that makes sense.

 

[PokerGuy]

Because we're talking about enforcement actions against banks as an entity, not individuals. Dodd-Frank deals with institutions, not people, so saying because they didn't prosecute people means Dodd-Frank is meaningless is not correct.

I wasn't referring specifically to Dodd-Frank enforcement -- after all, Dodd-Frank wasn't even in place until after the 2008-2009 meltdown. The fact that very very very few people have been held accountable for anything that happened shows that nobody is really interested in serious change. Pretending it's one side or the other is just foolish naivete.

 

[PokerGuy]

Lol at this statement. You are hoping that Obama who you routinely trash is the voice of reason and vetoes a bill from a party that you hope would one day hold all the levers of power.. Lol.. Yeah that makes sense.

You need to learn to read and comprehend. He said no such thing.