Hilarious point scored by Dem Senator on banking comittee

Politics
1

This is a keeper.

4 Likes
2

Well, she’s no longer a Dem . But yes, very good.

1 Like
3

Just in name only.

4

Good points, both of you.

1 Like
5

Well, not even that; she left the party

6

You said she wasn’t a dem and I said in name only. Meaning she is only saying she isn’t a dem by name. She will still vote the same way she did before she “left”.

1 Like
7

Dems hate her. One of the reasons she left.

8

Yes, but will her voting history change just because she took the D off behind her name?

Doubtful. That is what I meant. She is ‘not a Dem’ in name only. Her ideology will not change.

1 Like
9

They should be sorry that Martha McSalley is not the Senator.

10

Well, Dems started hating her exactly because of how she was voting i.e. disloyal to the party. Her and Manchin helped sink some significant Biden legislature in the Senate.

Some nuts even followed her into the bathroom to confront her.

11

Sure.

1 Like
12

Of course the regulators couldn’t spot it.

That’s been the design for th past 30 years
to deliberately make sure government doesn’t work so you can cry out “See? Government doesn’t work!”

PS That’s not to say I wouldn’t be opposed to crowdsourcing some regulatory functions because that can work. It can also be Yelpified, however.

13

This post completely confuses me.

  • On March 15, 2020 the Fed lowered the reserve requirement to ZERO.

  • In March 2022, the Fed announced for the first of many times, that it would raise interest rates and keep them there. Nearly every bank and investor in the system began to insure their long duration assets (30% insurance norm. Several entities are 60% insured.) SVB remained stuck on its “permabull” outlook and bought zero insurance.

  • Throughout its history, SVB had a “rate margin” (like a profit margin) of 2% even while 4-6% remained the industry norm. From it’s inception it operated like a private piggy bank to provide bank-style loans for the risky schemes of cool-o California tech investors.

The regulators messed up again and again and none of this was a conspiracy to make me think anything.

1 Like
14

Where did I say it was a conspiracy?

It’s been right out in the open for decades
make the regulators as toothless as possible or incentivize them to look the other way.

15

Nothing made them toothless.

The Fed today is much like the liberal prosecutor who time after time let’s a muggers gof ree (even though he has both the ability and the responsibility to jail them.) Then when the mugger finally kills someone, he says “It’s the GOP’s fault we need to elect democrats and outlaw guns.”

1 Like
16

Why do people think “regulators” are about anything but, in this case at least, protecting those living off of the churn?

17

I inferred it when you wrote
"Of course the regulators couldn’t spot it.

That’s been the design for th past 30 years
to deliberately make sure government doesn’t work so you can cry out “See? Government doesn’t work!”

What you describe there is a conspiracy

con·spir·a·cy
noun
a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

18

There are more banking regulations today than ever before in history.

19

The Fed today is much like the liberal prosecutor who time after time let’s a muggers gof ree (even though he has both the ability and the responsibility to jail them.) Then when the mugger finally kills someone, he says “It’s the GOP’s fault we need to elect democrats and outlaw guns.”

2 Likes
20

Well, gun grabbers do need victims to parade around.