|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 25, 2020 11:12:59 GMT
Senate Republicans aim to gut debit-card safeguards
A group of seven Senate Republicans are moving to gut consumer protections for prepaid debit cards before they’re enacted. The rules, aimed at providing many of the same safeguards that consumers take for granted with credit and debit cards, would require fee disclosures, fraud protections and limits on overdraft fees.
Using a rarely invoked law called the Congressional Review Act, the group wants to block implementation of the regulations before they go into effect in October. The Act allows legislators to quash regulations with a simple majority vote and the approval of the president. If successful, the resolution would stop the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) from implementing these -- or similar -- rules without prior congressional approval. President Trump takes steps to lift Wall Street regulations The effort to block the debit-card safeguards comes as President Trump proceeds with a plan to dismantle Dodd-Frank, the 2010 financial reform law passed after the housing crash. “We’re going to be doing a big number on Dodd-Frank,” Trump said earlier this week in a meeting with small business owners, calling the law a “disaster.”
Of the seven senators -- the resolution sponsor David Perdue, R-Georgia, and co-sponsors Johnny Isakson, R-Georgia, Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, Tom Cotton R-Arkansas, James Lankford R-Oklahoma, Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Mike Rounds, R-South Dakota -- only one immediately returned a request for comment.
www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-group-aims-to-gut-debit-card-safeguards/
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 25, 2020 11:13:25 GMT
Anyone have a guess at why Republicans do this or have done this to President Obama? This is just more of why my reasoning is that it is totally useless to argue with a Republican, Conservative, Right Winger, Alt Righter, Libertarian, Blue Dog Democrats, etc. They are brick walls who only care about what they care about. They do not care about what you care about unless you are one of them. If you want to argue with them then do it with the understanding that you are honing your debate skills and using them as an impetus to research the days political garbage in garbage out.
The best thing all of us can do on the Left is to become educated on the issues, talk to like minded people and educate them, get them to understand the importance of voting and to recognize voter suppression, voter purging, gerrymandering, vote tally flipping and switching and outright election fraud. AND VOTE. Registered Democrats OUTNUMBER registered Republicans yet Republicans somehow win in their districts. Investigate that somehow, how they did it. With Republicans things are rarely as they seem. It is much harder to steal an election when the masses vote. Don't make it easy for them.Republican concerns about the deficit are, and have always been, a sham. Orrin Hatch inadvertently helps end the debate over the deficit 04/26/17 10:09 AM—Updated 04/26/17 12:23 PM By Steve Benen The White House will release some details today about Donald Trump’s new tax plan, but administration officials have already acknowledged the fact that the costs of the policy won’t be offset with spending cuts, and Team Trump doesn’t much care about the impact on the deficit.
It’s likely Republicans on Capitol Hill will adopt a similar attitude. The New York Times reported late yesterday that “the powerful chairman of the Senate finance committee said Tuesday he was prepared to support President Trump’s plan to cut corporate tax rates to 15 percent even if it added to the budget deficit.” Senator Orrin G. Hatch, the Republican finance committee chairman, is a critical voice on tax issues in Congress and support from him could make the difference in whether members of Congress fall in line and support the president’s proposal. […]
“I’m open to getting this country moving,” Mr. Hatch said. He said that if the tax cut could stimulate the economy, then he was not as bothered by the impact it had on budget deficits. “I’m not so sure we have to go that route, but if we do, I can live with it,” Mr. Hatch said. Well, yes, of course he can – because Republican concerns about the deficit are, and have always been, a sham.
In fact, Orrin Hatch offers a terrific case study on the matter. In the Bush/Cheney era, the Utah Republican voted for all kinds of Republican priorities – wars, tax cuts, Medicare expansion, etc. – by adding the costs to the national charge card. In 2009, Hatch told the Associated Press that “it was standard practice not to pay for things” during Bush’s presidency.
A year later, the GOP senator told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell “a lot of things weren’t paid for” before President Obama took office.
Once there was a Democratic administration, Hatch changed course, insisting it was important to “slash our nation’s debt” and address the deficit “crisis.”
Now that Republicans are in power again, wouldn’t you know it, Hatch is comfortable with a massive corporate tax cut, and the deficit is a minor inconvenience that’s better left ignored.
My point is not to pick on Hatch, since he’s hardly the only one in his party who’s brazenly inconsistent about pretending to care about “fiscal responsibility.” The Utah Republican’s comments yesterday put a spotlight on the vapidity of the debate, but Hatch has plenty of company.
The point, rather, is that it’s time to retire the debate itself. The cycle is as endless as it is tiresome, and there’s simply no reason anyone should take it seriously any longer. Republicans said they cared deeply about deficit reduction in the Clinton era, then they said (and did) the opposite in the Bush era. Once Obama was in office, Republicans said, in the name of America’s children and grandchildren, that a balanced budget must be everyone’s top priority, which gave way to the Trump era, at which point deficit reduction was once again banished to the periphery.
It’s lazy and unprincipled nonsense.
www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/orrin-hatch-inadvertently-helps-end-the-debate-over-the-deficit
Explore: The MaddowBlog, Deficit, Deficit Reduction, Deficits, Orrin Hatch and Republicans
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 25, 2020 11:13:53 GMT
The Bohemian Grove is almost exclusively a Republican institution so I am placing this strange story here in this thread:Published on May 2, 2017 Become our Patreon, read our goals here! www.patreon.com/truthstreammedia
Truthstream Can Be Found Here: Website: TruthstreamMedia.com FB: Facebook.com/TruthstreamMedia Twitter: @truthstreamnews4 Videos Of Politicians Confronted About Bohemian Grove That Make You Say WTF Rock Star Admits He’s Been to Snuff Parties Where People Are Murdered For Fun Watch George Carlin Expose The Illuminati (Illuminati Exposed) (2017)
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 25, 2020 11:14:18 GMT
From the Party of self-proclaimed family values:
Brick Walls that call themselves Conservatives and Republicans
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 25, 2020 11:15:35 GMT
Republicans change their tune on the mishandling of classified infoMSNBC has aired some amazing clip collections of Trump on the campaign trail in 2016, insisting that anyone who's mishandled classified information should obviously be disqualified from positions of authority.
And yet, here we are, six months after the election, learning about a Republican president sharing classified information with a foreign adversary -- for reasons that are still unclear -- generating widespread yawns from many GOP lawmakers.
The American electorate just endured more than a year in which it was told repeatedly that putting sensitive information at risk was the single most important issue in the presidential election -- it was the one thing Republicans pretended to care the most about -- to the point that it could literally be the basis for impeachment.
I don't want to alarm anyone, but I'm starting to think that maybe, just maybe, the GOP's apoplexy wasn't on the level.
www.yahoo.com/news/m/b319086b-0acb-384c-bfdc-c9b7f2a16a0d/republicans-change-their-tune.html
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 25, 2020 11:16:02 GMT
Donald Trump set a new standard for low life Republicans. If anything it will bring more Republicans out to vote for him because it is the evil press attacking one of their own. I don't know much about this race or how close it might be. These Republicans are becoming unhinged just like the liars at GOP TV aka FOX. Much of the state has already voted.
Look At These Politicians Who Don't Punch Reporters Who Put Recorders In Their Faces Amanda Terkel,HuffPost 4 hours ago .
Montana GOP congressional candidate Greg Gianforte physically attacked a reporter Wednesday after becoming so incensed that the man, a journalist with The Guardian, had the audacity to put a recorder near his face and ask him a question about health care. www.yahoo.com/news/look-politicians-don-apos-t-043634498.htmlPublished on May 24, 2017
Anti-Trump Reporter Assaults GOP House Candidate, Patriot Has Last Laugh As He Goes WWE! WATCH!
America-hating reporters sure are on the warpath since Trump won the election. A day doesn’t go by when fake news MSM gumshoes don’t try & smear national hero President Trump with bs claims of collusion with Russia. Now, one reporter for the anti-American media outlet The Guardian has literally assaulted a Republican candidate for U.S. House in Montana.
The reporter, ambush journalist Ben Jacobs, burst into a room where Pro-Trump candidate Greg Gianforte was waiting to be interviewed by a local news station. Jacobs then shoved a recorder in Gianforte’s face and began goading him with loaded questions about Trump in an effort to get the candidate to react. Gianforte responded, “We’ll talk to you about that later.” Jacobs persisted by sticking the recorder closer to Gianforte’s face & questioning him more. Gianforte told him to speak to “Shane,” but Jacobs wouldn’t get out of the candidate’s face and kept pressing for answers to his questions about Trump. Gianforte then tried to grab the recorder, according to his staff. Jacobs then assaulted the Republican candidate by grabbing his arm in a violent manner. It was then that snowflake Jacobs realized he made the biggest mistake of his life.
Gianforte, seeing that Jacobs was intent on causing him serious physical harm, defended himself by channeling his inner John Cena & body slamming him into the ground. The liberal snowflake reporter didn’t know what hit him.
Here’s audio of the assault, and Gianforte’s awesome WWE move on the George Soros-funded “journalist,” Jacobs. Now, of course, The Guardian is trying to make it seem like Gianforte started the whole thing, which is as big a lie as the Russia/Trump collusion story that MSM spews nonstop.
Here’s what they said about the incident: Audio obtained of Greg Gianforte attacking a reporter on eve of a special election to fill a congressional seat vacated by a member of the Trump administration.
The Republican candidate for Montana’s congressional seat slammed a Guardian reporter to the floor on the eve of the state’s special election, breaking his glasses and shouting, “Get the hell out of here.”
Ben Jacobs, a Guardian political reporter, was asking Greg Gianforte, a tech millionaire running for the seat vacated by Ryan Zinke, about the Republican healthcare plan when the candidate allegedly “body-slammed” the reporter.
“He took me to the ground,” Jacobs said by phone from the back of an ambulance. “This is the strangest thing that has ever happened to me in reporting on politics.”
The altercation took place at Gianforte’s campaign headquarters in Bozeman, Montana. Gianforte was in a side room with a local television news crew when Jacobs attempted to ask his question, according to Jacobs.
“I decided there was no harm in asking one question, and the worst thing that could happen was they would tell me to go to hell,” Jacobs said.
Of course, they try backing up their story with another anti-Trump reporter’s testimony. The reporter, from the pro-Hillary site, Buzzfeed, literally admits that she didn’t see what happened. But that doesn’t matter. The bigger the lie, you know.
Jacobs’s account was partially confirmed by BuzzFeed News reporter Alexis Levinson, who wrote on Twitter that she had been in an adjacent room during the incident.
“This happened behind a half closed door, so I didn’t see it all, but here’s what it looked like from the outside – Ben walked into a room where a local tv crew was set up for an interview with Gianforte. All of a sudden I heard a giant crash and saw Ben’s feet fly in the air as he hit the floor. Heard very angry yelling (as did all the volunteers in the room) – sounded like Gianforte…”
Gianforte is backed by Trump, and his son Trump Jr. visited Montana a few weeks ago to rally for the candidate.
He is also supported by a diverse group of Montanans as the Billings Gazette notes:
Crow Tribal Chairman A.J. Not Afraid threw his administration’s support behind the Republican candidate for Montana’s Congressional seat during a Friday meeting in front of residents.
The candidate, Greg Gianforte, was on hand and appeared at two events in Crow Agency. One was a tribal government meeting; the second was a more informal barbecue held by former tribal Chairman Darrin Old Coyote.
At the first event, held in the Crow multi-purpose building in Crow Agency, Gianforte briefly ran through a number of policy points, including the creation of a west coast coal port to serve Crow exports.
“The Crow people and all of Montana need a strong voice in Washington, D.C.,” Gianforte said.
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 25, 2020 11:16:34 GMT
Trump is a diversion. Trump is the TROJAN HORSE that brought in some very dangerous groups with him to the executive branch. The Koch Bros. are now in the White House pulling the strings on their puppet Mike Pence. What is the Club for Growth, Freedom Partners and Americans for Prosperity? Those are the GROUPS to watch. And who to watch? Mike Pence and Mark Short. ( Mark Short, is now president of Freedom Partners, another Koch group and Pence's former chief of staff.) There is a case building from some right wing politicos that Mike Pence, left in place after a Donald Trump impeachment is a better way to get their agenda items passed even though much of it is already being put in place by Trump himself. Pence is just as dangerous if not MORE so than Trump and Bannon.What is the Actual Hidden Agenda of the Radical Right?Published on Jun 15, 2017 Thom speaks with guest Professor Nancy MacLean (William Chafe Professor of History & Public Policy - Duke University, Author - Democracy In Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America) about the true motives behind what the right supports in terms of policy and public perception. (Pt 1/2)Vice President Mike Pence Would Be a Dream for the Koch BrothersDonald Trump has long boasted of his independence from GOP donors, but that may be changing. By George ZornickTwitter July 14, 2016 Donald Trump triumphed in the Republican primaries, at least in part, because he explicitly rejected the party’s donor class and relentlessly painted his opponents as bought-and-paid-for. “These are highly sophisticated killers, and when they give $5 million, or $2 million or $1 million to Jeb [Bush], they have him just like a puppet,” he proclaimed at the Iowa State Fair. In that sense, Trump’s selection of Indiana governor Mike Pence is exceptionally strange. For years, Pence has been a loyal political ally of the biggest GOP donors out there: the Koch Brothers. Pence has employed many top Koch staffers in his political offices, and vice-versa, while a steady flow of Koch money has filled Pence’s campaign accounts. Indiana, which Pence has governed since 2013, has become a testing ground for many of the network’s conservative policy ideas. “Indiana is one big free market, [and] much like Koch Industries, Mike Pence … picks the right fights,” said pollster Kellyanne Conway in 2014. (Conway is one of many people who has worked for both Pence and Koch-affiliated groups, and she now works for the Trump campaign.) Pence began traveling in similar lanes to the Koch brothers early in his career. In 1991, Pence became president of the Indiana Policy Review Foundation, which is part of the State Policy Network. Those are innocuous names, but as a Center for Media and Democracy report explains, SPN affiliates “push an extreme right-wing agenda that aims to privatize education, block healthcare reform, restrict workers’ rights, roll back environmental protections, and create a tax system that benefits most those at the very top level of income.” The IPRF was a small group back when Pence was president, but in the years since it has amassed an enormous budget thanks in large part to the largess of the Koch network of donors. When Pence eventually made it to Congress, he became a favorite of the libertarian megadonors by opposing a lot of George W. Bush’s big-spending programs, like the Medicare Part D expansion. Both Koch Industries and Koch Enterprises became top donors to Pence’s Congressional career. As governor of Indiana, Pence earned even more admiration for his enormous tax cut—-the biggest in Indiana history, which Pence signed only a few months after taking office. The cuts were so big they actually met resistance from some Republican members of the state legislature, but many Koch groups loved them. “He’s made Indiana a leader when it comes to moving forward with greater economic freedom” Tim Phillips, the president of the Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity, told the Washington Post. There are deep staff connections between Pence and the Koch network as well. His long-time adviser and past chief of staff, Mark Short, is now president of Freedom Partners, another Koch group. When Pence endured a series of political embarrassments last year, from his support of an unpopular “religious freedom” law to a botched attempt to start a state-run news service, Pence hired Koch Industry’s then-communications director, Matt Lloyd, to come work for him in Indiana. Lloyd was a longtime Pence staffer in Congress and during his political campaigns before leaving for the Koch job. As the 2016 election approached, the Koch brothers were widely reported to be urging Pence to run, which he ultimately declined to do. His name on the Trump ticket—-if that happens—-still doesn’t guarantee the Koch network will lend financial support to the presidential campaign. Politico and the Washington Post already both reported Thursday that the Koch network’s dislike of Trump will keep them from spending money on the presidential race even with Pence on the ticket. That might change, or it might not—but either way the Koch brothers will have a powerful advocate for their ideas in the room. And Trump will have his very own “puppet” of the GOP’s “highly sophisticated killers.” The Hoax Presidency of Donald Trump rudolfblog.com/2016/12/04/the-hoax-presidency-of-donald-trump-by-nodisinfo/
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 27, 2020 5:52:51 GMT
Five things Trump said during his speech to Boy Scouts
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 27, 2020 5:53:24 GMT
This still hold about Trump voters:
Trump voters explain their unshakable faith
Published on Sep 11, 2016
What motivates the Republican presidential candidate's most loyal supporters? Seen as a loose cannon by many, Donald Trump has positioned himself as the voice of a part of America that's given up on politics and the two major political parties. They are backing the real estate tycoon/reality TV star on faith, as if buying a political lottery ticket. Major Garrett introduces us to some Trump voters speaking from their hearts.
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 27, 2020 5:53:58 GMT
Robert E Lee's descendant tells Trump to stop defending Confederate statues: 'How dare you'
The Independent Andrew Buncombe,The Independent 18 hours ago .
For more news videos visit Yahoo View, available on iOS and Android.
A descendant of Confederate general Robert E Lee has called for all statues of him to be pulled down and claimed Donald Trump has “no idea” what he is talking about when he defends them.
In the aftermath of neo-Nazi-led violence in Charlottesville that left one woman dead, Mr Trump was slow to blame the white supremacists who triggered the clashes and said there was blame on “many sides”.
He also defended the “fine people” who were protesting over plans to remove the statue of the general. “I wonder, is it George Washington next week,” he told reporters during an rumbustious press conference in Trump Tower.
Yet Karen Finney, a descendant of Lee and a one-time spokesman for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, said Mr Trump does not know what he is talking about and was not “intellectually interested” in learning about the difficult, complex history he was diving into.
“President Trump, how dare you. You have no idea,” she told MSNBC.
There were two periods in US history - between 1880 to 1920, and during the 1950s and 1960s - when most of the statues of figures such as Lee were erected. They were put up by white communities trying to impose control on black people and to push back against the progress being made by the civil rights campaign. “[It was] to say to blacks, ‘guess who’s still charge’,” said Ms Finney, a great-great-great grandniece of Lee.
“This is the system of the Confederacy that Donald Trump was defending, so when he throws those kinds of terms around he doesn’t really understand the history.”
Ms Finney, whose mother is white and whose father was black, said it was essential for the country to have a sober conversation about what such statues represented. Otherwise, the country was failing to tell the truth about a period that represented “real terrorism”. At a rally this week in Arizona, Mr Trump again spoke out in defence of retaining such statues, which many cities and states are rushing to remove.
Speaking in Phoenix on Tuesday, he said those trying to get rid of the statues were “trying to take away our culture. They’re trying to take away our history”.
“And our weak leaders, they do it overnight. These things have been there for one hundred-and-fifty years, for a hundred years,” said Mr Trump. “You go back to a university and it’s gone. Weak, weak people.” Ms Finney is not the only descendant of Lee to have denounced the violence that broke out in Charlottesville and left 32-year-old Heather Heyer dead. A 20-year-old man has been charged with her murder.
“There's no place for that,” Robert E Lee V told Newsweek of the violence. “There’s no place for that hate.”
He added: “Our belief is that General Lee would not tolerate that sort of behaviour either. His first thing to do after the Civil War was to bring the Union back together, so we could become a more unified country.”
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 27, 2020 5:58:00 GMT
Also, two of the great-great grandsons of Stonewall Jackson have been publicly advocating for his statues to be taken down.
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 27, 2020 5:58:36 GMT
Republicans Are People Too
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 27, 2020 6:00:27 GMT
Much of the science is more about Liberal vs. Conservative but since the 1960's the cons fled to the Republican Party where most are now conservative (at least in their own minds). Liberals or Progressives are now mostly Democratic. Then there are Moderates which "might" be more in the "in-between" area or for one reason or another don't like either party or party politics. It is more of a gray area. My personal opinion is our political preferences are in our genes and those genes made up our brain centers and those centers are structured to be one way or another.
I only pick on Republicans and Conservatives because of the absolute right wing media glut. 99% of talk radio and tv media is conservative with the rest being Corporate media which is NOT Liberal. Most media caters to the right wing including the corporate mainstream media because they know that is where the easier manipulated people/audience lies as does the $. Individual anchors may be liberal or progressive but they too mostly emphasize conservatism. Even the Sunday morning talk shows have 2-3 Cons or Republicans for each Democrat or Liberal. They may as well be called Meet The Republicans. Look at all the free media Trump received...billions. So in my small way I like to try to get an opposition viewpoint out anyway I can and the science behind it fascinates me.
It would be quite easy to pick on Democrats and Liberals but hey, that is already done 24/7 at a much higher percentage and there is very little truth in the way it is dished out. How to Speak Republican Sigmund Freud explains the Republican Brain The Republican Brain is Not Like Other Brains - Chris Mooney Liberal vs. Conservative: A Neuroscientific Analysis with Gail SaltzPublished on May 29, 2016
What the difference in brain structure between liberals and conservatives? And where do our political convictions come from: rational deliberation, or biological determinism? Psychiatrist Gail Saltz explains.
Read more at BigThink.com: bigthink.com/videos/gail-saltz...
Follow Big Think here: YouTube: goo.gl/CPTsV5 Facebook: www.facebook.com/BigThinkdotcom Twitter: twitter.com/bigthink
Transcript - So I think what’s really fascinating is that there have been a number of recent studies looking at brain structural differences between liberals and conservatives. And what’s been found in several studies is that liberals tend to have a larger anterior cingulate gyrus. That is an area that is responsible for taking in new information and that impact of the new information on decision making or choices. Conservatives tended on the whole to have a larger right amygdala. Amygdala being a deeper brain structure that processes more emotional information - specifically fear based information. So it’s really responsible for the flight or fright response. And this isn’t everybody. It’s not black and white and of course then, you know, what about all of the people in the middle? But basically the study showed that if you just based it on brain structural size different you could predict who would be a conservative and who would be a liberal with frequency of 71.6 percent.
71.6 percent is a pretty high ability to predict who is a conservative and who is a liberal just from brain structure. When you look at what your parents were in terms of predicting what you might be in terms of conservative versus liberal, that enabled you to predict in studies at a rate of 69.5 percent. So very close. Not quite as good and why is that interesting? It’s because the brain is plastic. So the question as to whether you have a brain structure to start with that informs whether you will be a liberal or conservative or whether the formation of certain thoughts from your parents for example shapes your brain structure. Because the brain is plastic and ever changing, particularly in youth. So does thinking certain thoughts or predominantly let’s say utilizing your right amygdala versus your anterior cingulate gyrus inform the growth of those areas and therefore help you predict later who is liberal and who is conservative.
So in terms of interpreting the meaning of different sized structures for a liberal versus a conservative I think you have to look at what that area is predominantly responsible for. So for instance for conservatives if you’re right amygdala is enlarged and that’s the fear processing area you would expect maybe choices or decisions or character and personality to be more informed by a response to a fearful situation. So for example conservatives in fact in personality studies do tend to rate higher in areas of stability, loyalty, not liking change, being more religiously involved in terms of decision making, having that rate higher for them in making certain choices. And if you look at liberals from a personality character standpoint you’re going to find stronger ratings in terms of liking change wanting to actually base decision making on new information, on science information. And so those differences are not surprising in light of these brain structural differences.
Being a liberal or being a conservative really is not black and white. It’s really a bell shaped curve where, you know, someone who considers themselves conservative may be far less conservative so to speak than someone else who still calls themselves a conservative. And that bell shaped curve continues all the way through where in the middle there may be a large group that calls themselves independents.
Category Education
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 27, 2020 6:06:13 GMT
If you take the time to watch this video you will see how corrupt the Republican Party is. How corrupt the Reagan Bush/ Bush Quayle administration was. How far in bed Republicans are with the CIA to include mafia ties, drug running, S & L fraud. How corrupt the state of Texas is. And how this corruption spreads into the corrupt state of Florida where yet another corrupt Bush became governor.
Included in this piece is evidence that in 1988 (weeks before the election) candidate for President aka VP George H W Bush stopped the regulators in Topeka which regulated Silverado Savings and Loan run by Bush's son Neil (Director) from shutting it down. Had that happened before the election Bush might not have won the election. I call this a REVERSE OCTOBER SURPRISE. This is yet another example of how Republicans take the US presidency outside of legal means.
There hasn't been a legitimately elected Republican president since Dwight Eisenhower and that INCLUDES the current occupant of the White House otherwise known as DONALD J TRUMP. Trump has his own bizarre anti American story but it should be no surprise he chose to run as a Republican where these crooks find it easy to lead.
When you watch this it becomes clear that these people (Republicans, Bush, CIA, mafia, Neocons) involved could easily have pulled off the 9/11 incident. Iran Contra, S & L debacle and other nefarious activities was just the warm up for 9/11.
What I find particularly disgusting is that this party is allowed to exist in our country. More disgusting than that is the people who continually vote Republican knowing how pathetically corrupt their party and party leaders are. They are of a mindset they DON'T CARE because Republicans are THEIR criminals and we love OUR criminals leading us. This is why Republicanism populated by a conservative mindset is a mental disorder. There is no other explanation.
The Bush Crime Family - The Mafia, CIA and George Bush
Published on Jul 2, 2016
- The Bush Crime Family and the S&L Scandal. An investigation of connections between the Mafia, the CIA, a small group of powerful Texas businessmen and politicians, and the $500 billion savings and loan scandal - Book by by Pete Brewton (Author)
The savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s (commonly dubbed the S&L crisis) was the failure of 1,043 out of the 3,234 savings and loan associations in the United States from 1986 to 1995: the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) closed or otherwise resolved 296 institutions from 1986 to 1989 and the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) closed or otherwise resolved 747 institutions from 1989 to 1995.
A savings and loan or "thrift" is a financial institution that accepts savings deposits and makes mortgage, car and other personal loans to individual members (a cooperative venture known in the United Kingdom as a building society). By 1995, the RTC had closed 747 failed institutions nationwide, worth a total possible book value of between $402 and $407 billion. In 1996, the General Accounting Office estimated the total cost to be $160 billion, including $132.1 billion taken from taxpayers. The FSLIC and RTC were created to resolve the S&L crisis.
In 1979, the Federal Reserve System of the United States doubled interest rates that it charges its member banks in an effort to reduce inflation. The building or savings and loans associations (S&Ls) had issued long-term loans at fixed interest rates that were lower than the interest rate at which they could borrow. In addition, the S&Ls had the liability of the deposits which paid higher interest rates than the rate at which they could borrow. When interest rates at which they could borrow increased, the S&Ls could not attract adequate capital, from deposits to savings accounts of members for instance, they became insolvent. Rather than admit to insolvency, lax regulatory oversight allowed some S&Ls to invest in highly speculative investment strategies. This had the effect of extending the period where S&Ls were likely technically insolvent. These adverse actions also substantially increased the economic losses for the S&Ls than would otherwise have been realized had their insolvency been discovered earlier. One extreme example was that of financier Charles Keating, who paid $51 million financed through Michael Milken's "junk bond" operation, for his Lincoln Savings and Loan Association which at the time had a negative net worth exceeding $100 million.
Others, such as author/financial historian Kenneth J. Robinson or the account of the crisis published in 2000 by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), give multiple reasons as to why the Savings and Loan Crisis came to pass. In no particular order of significance, they identify the rising monetary inflation beginning in the late 1960s spurred by simultaneous domestic spending programs of President Lyndon B. Johnson's "Great Society" programs coupled with the military expenses of the continuing Vietnam War that continued into the late 1970s. The efforts to end rampant inflation of the late 1970s and early 1980s by raising interest rates brought on recession in the early 1980s and the beginning of the S&L crisis. Deregulation of the S&L industry, combined with regulatory forbearance, and fraud worsened the crisis.
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 27, 2020 6:11:21 GMT
Hurricane Harvey And The Potential Hypocrisy Of Texas RepublicansHuffPost Matt Fuller,HuffPost 1 hour 6 minutes ago .
WASHINGTON ― Texas Republicans, long accustomed to bashing the federal government, are already changing their tune now that Hurricane Harvey has devastated parts of their state.
An emergency aid package hasn’t surfaced yet, but Congress almost certainly will have to approve a spending bill to help those affected by the hurricane-force winds and widespread flooding in southeastern Texas. The question is whether that money will be offset by cuts to other government programs, whether extraneous spending will be attached to the package, and whether, under any circumstances, Texas Republicans will have a problem voting for it.
Money to help those in need from a lawmaker’s homestate isn’t a particularly tough vote. At this point, no Texas Republican has declared any sort of condition for their support of an emergency aid package. But when it was New York and New Jersey hit hard by Hurricane Sandy in 2012, all but one Texas Republican in Congress ― Rep. John Culberson ― voted against a $50.5 billion package to help people in those states.
That was no surprise. The Texas delegation tends to speak with one voice, and there’s little political repercussions for its members to vote against government largesse for another state.
Many Republicans at the time said they took issue with unrelated spending that was attached to the Sandy bill, though most of the funding was directed at helping the storm’s victims. And even some of the most derided provisions ― like $2 million to repair Smithsonian roofs in Washington ― were, in fact, related to that storm (it brought heavy wind and rain to that nation’s capital, as well.)
Overall, according to an analysis of the legislation compiled by CQ, the Sandy aid bill included $16 billion for community development programs, $11.5 billion for FEMA’s disaster relief fund, $10.9 billion for transportation system repairs, $5.4 billion for Army Corps of Engineers projects, $800 million for social service programs, and $826 million for repairs to national parks and facilities.
But Texas Republicans latched onto the notion that the Sandy relief package was full of wasteful spending. When the Senate was voting on the bill in early 2013, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) railed against the “unrelated spending, including projects such as Smithsonian repairs, upgrades to National Oceanic and Atmospheric airplanes, and more funding for Head Start.”
Again, the Smithsonian repairs ― representing 0.00004 percent of the money appropriated ― were related to Sandy, and the upgrades and repairs to NOAA aircraft were to help with future hurricane forecasting. The money for Head Start, meanwhile, was available only to those facilities damaged by Sandy.
On Monday, when Cruz was asked about voting against Sandy aid in 2013 but now openly seeking help for his state, he said there would be time for “political sniping” later.
“The problem with that particular bill,” Cruz said of the Sandy package on MSNBC, “is it became a $50 billion bill that was filled with unrelated pork. Two-thirds of that bill had nothing to do with Sandy, and what I said then and still believe now is that it’s not right for politicians to exploit a disaster and people hurting to pay for their own political wishlist.”
Cruz seems to be referring to the fact that only $17 billion of the package was for immediate relief and recovery needs, while other spending was for longer-term projects.
Notwithstanding Cruz’s call for a moratorium on “political sniping,” some New York and New Jersey Republicans couldn’t help but take a few shots at the Texas delegation on Monday, even as they affirmed that they would support those people in need.
Rep. Peter King, whose district encompasses parts of Long Island, tweeted that he wouldn’t “abandon Texas the way Ted Cruz did New York;” New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie called the Texas lawmakers “hypocrites;” and Rep. Frank LoBiondo of the Garden State tweeted that despite the stance of his Texas colleagues on the Sandy relief package, he would support emergency money for their constituents.
Overall, 23 of the 24 Texas Republicans then in the House voted against the Sandy package. And joining Cruz in opposing it was the state’s other senator, John Cornyn (who’s now that chamber’s majority whip).
Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.). (Tom Williams via Getty Images)
HuffPost reached out Monday morning to the offices of the 20 Texas Republicans still in the House, as well as staff members for Cruz and Cornyn, with questions that included whether they thought emergency aid for their state ought to be offset with spending cuts elsewhere and whether they could commit to backing the storm-related funding even if it is not offset and the bill contains some extraneous spending provisions.
As of late Monday afternoon, only House Rules Chairman Pete Sessions’ staff responded and ― no shocker here ― the lawmaker has no reservations about supporting aid for Texas.
With President Donald Trump already touting his administration’s response to Hurricane Harvey, members of his team also find themselves facing a course reversal from their previous political principles.
Vice President Mike Pence, for instance, as a House member from Indiana led the conservative call to offset emergency spending in 2005 when Hurricane Katrina hammered Louisiana and Mississippi. Pence said Monday he expected Congress to make resources available for Texas, with no mention of strings attached.
Office of Management and Budget director Mick Mulvaney ― who as a House member from South Carolina pushed for offsets to the Sandy bill’s spending and voted against the package ― now will be in charge of putting together the administration’s emergency request for Texas. Hardly anyone expects Mulvaney to insist that those emergency dollars be paid for with cuts elsewhere.
It’s possible that the package just gets attached to an upcoming bill to keep the government operating past Sept. 30. In that case, a number of Republicans ― including House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who opposed the Sandy bill ― could be spared from the political hypocrisy of supporting aid now.
After all, they could explain their “yes” vote by simply focusing on the need to keep the government open. And they’ll be able to decide if supporting aid for the next natural disaster fits with their political agenda without worry that someone might throw this vote back in their face.
This article originally appeared on HuffPost: www.yahoo.com/news/hurricane-harvey-potential-hypocrisy-texas-214741226.html
|
|