Gov't Gone Wild: An Eagle Scout Made a Felon

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 8, 2013 8:24:45 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

May 8, 2013 7:54:09 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I'm sure they did.  Another poster attempted to "correct" the record of the assistant principal's infraction (also, btw a felony at the time it happened) by pointing out that this latest law wasn't passed until this year.

LOL Paul and your understanding of laws and the process of creating them. The law has yet to be passed.

Ah, so then there's no problem?  I'm confused- I didn't bring this up as an issue, and I didn't pay that close attention.  I just noticed the dates.  Why was it posted, then?  Anyway- there are already laws on the books obviously.  Otherwise, how is he charged with a felony?

[djAdvocate]

May 7, 2013 15:50:14 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 7, 2013 12:11:28 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i would never encourage firearms at my place of work.  it opens to door to massive liability, imo. 

I know. Lawyers ruin everything.

i have to admit, i fear them more than i fear robbers of the other kind.

[billisonboard]

So I cruise along always searchin for songs
Not a lawyer a thief or a banker

[Virgil Showlion]

May 8, 2013 18:04:25 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

So I cruise along always searchin for songs
Not a lawyer a thief or a banker

My grandfather was a banker, but retired back in the day when "banking" was actual banking. Commercial banks were separate from investment banks (e.g. Goldman, Morgan Stanley, etc.), which aren't actually banks at all. Most of the people the public call "bankers" today aren't bankers. They're glorified investment salesmen.

Let it be a warning to any of us with the government can accomplish with the stroke of a pen.

[billisonboard]

May 8, 2013 23:29:07 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

... My grandfather was a banker, but retired back in the day when "banking" was actual banking. Commercial banks were separate from investment banks (e.g. Goldman, Morgan Stanley, etc.), which aren't actually banks at all. Most of the people the public call "bankers" today aren't bankers. They're glorified investment salesmen.

Let it be a warning to any of us with the government can accomplish with the stroke of a pen.

So did the government pass a law requiring commercial banks to become/join with investment banks?

[Virgil Showlion]

May 8, 2013 23:38:28 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

May 8, 2013 23:29:07 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

... My grandfather was a banker, but retired back in the day when "banking" was actual banking. Commercial banks were separate from investment banks (e.g. Goldman, Morgan Stanley, etc.), which aren't actually banks at all. Most of the people the public call "bankers" today aren't bankers. They're glorified investment salesmen.

Let it be a warning to any of us with the government can accomplish with the stroke of a pen.

So did the government pass a law requiring commercial banks to become/join with investment banks?

They eliminated something called the Glass-Steagall Act in 1995 that dictated strict rules any commercial bank had to follow if it wanted to call itself a "bank". Under Greenspan (and the final nail in the coffin being the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passed in 1999), investment firms could call themselves "banks" without any of the rules and regulations that governed commercial banks.

[billisonboard]

May 9, 2013 0:00:57 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 8, 2013 23:38:28 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

So did the government pass a law requiring commercial banks to become/join with investment banks?

They eliminated something called the Glass-Steagall Act in 1995 that dictated strict rules any commercial bank had to follow if it wanted to call itself a "bank". Under Greenspan (and the final nail in the coffin being the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passed in 1999), investment firms could call themselves "banks" without any of the rules and regulations that governed commercial banks.

So should we also take heart as to what government could accomplish with the stroke of a pen if pushed to reenact previous regulations?

[Virgil Showlion]

May 9, 2013 0:14:19 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

May 9, 2013 0:00:57 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

They eliminated something called the Glass-Steagall Act in 1995 that dictated strict rules any commercial bank had to follow if it wanted to call itself a "bank". Under Greenspan (and the final nail in the coffin being the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passed in 1999), investment firms could call themselves "banks" without any of the rules and regulations that governed commercial banks.

So should we also take heart as to what government could accomplish with the stroke of a pen if pushed to reenact previous regulations?

One might consider the capricious nature of the rules to be inherently disheartening, but yes, reinstating Glass-Stegall would be a good stroke of the pen.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 9, 2013 0:00:57 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 8, 2013 23:38:28 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

So did the government pass a law requiring commercial banks to become/join with investment banks?

They eliminated something called the Glass-Steagall Act in 1995 that dictated strict rules any commercial bank had to follow if it wanted to call itself a "bank". Under Greenspan (and the final nail in the coffin being the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passed in 1999), investment firms could call themselves "banks" without any of the rules and regulations that governed commercial banks.

The final nail in the coffin was when Fannie and Freddie decided they were going to back sub-prime mortgages.  Once the taxpayer became the backstop for the CRA, which banks pushed for to be sure, that's when the real free-for-all started with the NINJA loans, etc.  Risky lending was the problem, and Glass-Steagall had almost zero to do with risky lending.  Where Glass Stegall came into play was concerning a wall of separation between institutions that could retail investment and insurance products, and banking.

[billisonboard]

May 9, 2013 8:13:44 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

... Where Glass Stegall came into play was concerning a wall of separation between institutions that could retail investment and insurance products, and banking.

Which was exactly the topic of this little off topic side discussion.