Another Failure of Republican Deregulation

Ya missed again.

Indications are it was going on for years before the SEC was given the heads up.

But if you wish to back up the phony assertions made by j/c and answer the questions he's avoiding, wade right on in. :thumbs:

 

The OP is a big swing and a miss! It's got nothing to do with deregulation.

But the SEC has been direlect in its enforcement for decades. They're more concerned about some little bank on the corner not maintaining required cash deposite levels than they are about book-cookers like Enron and this guy.

 

Exactly the point:

That and the fact that a complaint coming from a competitor against a business which has an established reputation of satisfaction of its customers and few if any complaints.... can frequently involve sour grapes and jealously in competition from the complainer...... and mis reading or understanding what information is available when his information is not based on inside knowledge.

The truth is regulations exist so that boundaries and standards are understood and establish what is the necessary evidence or documentation to show, when examined, that regulations are being followed.

The buck stops with the President when it involves the policies of his office. Although all agencies of the Federal government are under the execution of his orders, his influence goes only so far through his appointed heads to those career employees under them which make up middle management, and the grunts under them who are responsible for the real work and communicating through the channels over issues which they find questionable. It is totally unrealistic..... if not insane ....... to expect the President to be involved in the micro management of every level of the many agencies. To really want and expect this is to desire a President who is a Lenin or a Stalin or a Hitler or a Saddam..... or other sinister despot who takes justice into his own hands.... both to correct and end corruption and/or to silence those who complain too much and cause trouble. That is not the type of country in which I want to live no matter what the economy!

 

I can't make head or tails out of what you just said above. Can you try to state this again a bit more clearly?

 

Looks like 1999 was under a Clinton Administration. Even so, how is the SEC connected to the Presidential Administration? I am asking because I honestly don't know. Likewise, how does the failure of the SEC equate to a failure by Republicans? Since when has the SEC been a part of the GOP?

 

How is the SEC connected to the Presidential Administration? I am asking because I honestly don't know.

 

Not be picky or anything, but you need to recount or something. The SEC became aware of this problem some time in 1999. Clearly Clinton's Administration. President Clinton was President until January 20, 2001. By my count that is two years of a known problem under the Clinton Administration. Just to clarify. Finally, how is the SEC connected to any given Presidential Administration?

 

That explains everythings. Democrats can do no wrong.:laugh: :laugh: :wavey: :thumbs:

 

So that raises the next question. Did President Bush replace the Clinton SEC Chairman upon his arrival in the oval office or did he leave the Clinton appointed SEC Chairman in place for a while? Just trying to get the historical record right.

 

Bible-boy, yes Bush replaced Clinton's head of the SEC. Read below:

From Fox News, Dec. 10, 2002

Jan. 5, 2005 ...From the White House ... Bush's announcement of the nomination of Cox as chair of the SEC.

In his campaign McCain called on Bush to fire Cox.

 

It would do well for folks to investigate before jumping to unwaranted conclusions and perpetuating false ideas masquerading as facts:
The President has less control of the SEC than most presume:

 

So as it stands there has been no evidence offered to prove the allegations of the title of the thread.

 

That's about it.

Another thread title that is an outright lie and the poster makes no effort whatsoever to back up the lie.

 

Actually when you conflate socialism with capitalism like we have over the last 20 years we get the train wreck we are in. The magic hand of the market has been corrupted with the failures of socialism.

 

That's probably true. When you experiment with a hybrid pseudo-capitalism, you retain the problems of both and the advantages of neither.

 

Just the opposite is true. The regulation caused problems and then was ignored when the Republicans gavve warning.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

 

You are right. All a person has to do is read their history. But those who refuse to read and learn from history are condemned to make the mistakes of the past. Read about the robber baron era in the US.

Look at the current bank bailout with no real oversight ... over 1 billion so far has gone as bonuses to the top banking officials.

No oversight, huge problems emerge. Greed knows no bounds when there are no boundaries.

Those who believe there should be no regulatory oversight are simply flaming Capitalists liberals.
/FONT]