View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002 Posts: 9118 Location: at a computer
|
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mrgybe wrote: | I make it a rule not to comment on topics that I know nothing about. You may wish to consider adopting that same rule. Boggsy........so quick to comment on my posts.........so slow to respond to his industry being panned by liberals. |
Mr...G I would like to but I'm too busy working my way through a desk full of paperwork. I do struggle with my fellow liberals when the subject turns to blame the evil banks mantra....
I will say its a lot different than before the financial crisis...so, from my perspective , you're both accurate. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999 Posts: 17744 Location: Berkeley, California
|
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Of course only some of the banks did things that, before Phil Gramm, were illegal. Most of the very big ones, and I would argue that they should have been broken up. The bond rating companies should nearly all have been prosecuted criminally. I think Obama and Holder have been too timid in holding them accountable. Penalize the cheaters seriously and the honest ones do well. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
keycocker
Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 3598
|
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It says the insecticides that those plants resist well are found on the corn they fed the rats.
It does not say that GM corn is bad for you, but allows that as a possibility.
Just reading the report, not stating my opinion.
Nearly everyone reading this has been eating GMO products every day for many years. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993 Posts: 10588
|
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2014 3:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Whether I know all the ins and outs of certain topics isn't always the issue. However, on the topic of genetic modification of food, I want to know whether the food products that I buy and consume include GMO ingredients. I feel that's it's imperative to be honest and transparent about such an important issue.
Why does Monsanto and others involved in creating GMO products fiercely fight labeling requirements? Their desire to keep folks in the dark is deeply concerning, and I find that extremely problematic. I'm surprised that you don't seem to care about what's being done deliberately behind our backs.
Again, you opened the door, but you seem quick to ignore and avoid what many folks like myself feel is a very serious problem. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
keycocker
Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 3598
|
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2014 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
The pathway to labeling is not so hard but does not need to be in court. The big companies are strong in that arena. we can attack them where they are weak.
At one time there was a similar effort to require organic or natural labeling on food.
We bought food marked with these labels, while waiting on the legal system.
When it became clear that there was money in labeling ,the food companies rushed to do it.
Same with Non GMO labels.
in case you are wondering, the research is quite public. 80% of the food in the store contains GMO. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999 Posts: 17744 Location: Berkeley, California
|
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2014 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There are actually well written and researched articles on GMO that show there is hysteria on one end of the spectrum and apologies on the other. The August New Yorker ran an article debunking the Indian anti-GMO activist Vandan Shiva that went perhaps too far: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/25/seeds-of-doubt
What I found disturbing in the summary that I quoted here was evidence of liver damage from GMO toxicity in corn, most likely from the adaptations that they have used to make corn varieties resistant to Roundup. I have read about allergic reactions before, but this was the first reference I've seen to toxicity.
With that said, it is important to put food safety in perspective. While pesticides have adverse impacts, and need to be regulated, there is little doubt that they have helped dramatically improve the productivity of agriculture. According to a number of well respected studies I've read, the risks associate with pesticide residues are minor compared to the risks of eating too few fruits and vegetables. My point is that food safety lies in the middle--appropriate, not hysterical regulation that is based on science. Of course there are those here who define all regulation as hysterical...
Too early to conclude that GMO corn is directly toxic. However, in working on environmental issues associated with chemicals, we know that the endocrine mimicking chemicals, which include many pesticides and chlorinated hydrocarbons, are strong suspects in the increase we have seen in cancers. That means they should be regulated, not that they should be banned. But if you don't believe in science, or government, you get failed states, no public health service to look at viral outbreaks, and no regulation of toxic chemicals that persist in the environment. Looks like utopia for those who make their living selling petroleum. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999 Posts: 17744 Location: Berkeley, California
|
Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2014 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My goodness, there is more:
Quote: | OPELIKA, Ala. — Powerful Alabama House Speaker Mike Hubbard has been arrested on felony ethics charges, accused of using public office for personal gain. Hubbard was indicted by a grand jury on 23 charges accusing him of misusing his office as speaker and his previous post as chairman of the Alabama Republican Party.
Acting Attorney General Van Davis announced the indictment Monday.
Hubbard says the charges, weeks before the November vote in which he's favored for re-election, constitute "a political witch hunt."
If convicted, Hubbard faces from two to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $300,000 on each count. The charges are latest corruption allegations against Alabama politicians to make headlines. The 52-year-old Republican led the GOP's takeover of the Legislature in 2010, ending 136 years of Democratic control. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999 Posts: 17744 Location: Berkeley, California
|
Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2014 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A big silence from the right here about the successful negotiations of a new budget. The threat of new, highly principled Tea baggers kept the Republican negotiators from giving away the economy again, eh? No? What a surprise.
Quote: | In late March, the House passed two bills loosening Dodd-Frank’s rules with major Democratic support. A week later, a version of GOP Rep. Stephen Fincher’s JOBS Act—which relaxes securities regulations on small companies raising money—was signed into law by President Obama. Now the House is poised to take a much bigger swipe at the regulations at the heart of Dodd-Frank.
At the heart of Wall Street reform is a crackdown on derivatives, the complex financial products that played a major role in the crisis. Dodd-Frank subjects the derivatives market to stricter transparency requirements, most notably by forcing many derivative swaps to happen on open exchanges. The House is now considering two bills that would significantly weaken these new derivatives rules.
The first would undo a new rule that requires the derivatives exchanges to post prices on swaps before making a trade. By removing price reporting requirements, for instance, legislators can reduce costs for Main Street businesses that rely on derivatives and “ensure that one of the most egregious examples of regulatory overreach in implementing Dodd-Frank does not become a reality, and thus, a drag on American job creation,” said Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ), who wrote the legislation.
The second would exempt U.S. swaps dealers who trade with foreign customers—or with foreign affiliates of U.S. companies—from being required to hold cash reserves as backup. Both bills have passed out of committee. Supporters argue that this is necessary to keep the U.S. derivatives market from being pushed overseas.
But defenders of strong regulation believe these bills aren’t just technical fixes to Dodd-Frank. They think they’d gut the new rules entirely. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) says the bills would effectively “re-deregulate derivatives in ways that would again make them a threat to our economy.” He believes the first bill would cripple Dodd-Frank’s effort to create a transparent market for derivatives. And he thinks the second would create a loophole for U.S. derivatives traders to simply move risky trading overseas, while continuing to risk the U.S. financial system (and U.S. taxpayers) if they went belly up.
As a whole, House Democrats will be significantly less willing to go along with these two new bills than the JOBS Act or the two earlier bills tweaking Dodd-Frank, all of which Frank supported. But the House GOP’s latest bills aren’t without support from across the aisle, as both gained a handful of Democratic votes when they were passed out of the House Financial Services Committee.
Frank, for his part, anticipates that the GOP will try to capitalize on their recent success. “You get into this bit by bit. You agree to couple bills reaffirming what’s in [Dodd-Frank] and gain momentum, a little thing here and a little thing there,” he explained. As such, Frank has doubled down on his effort to draw attention to the GOP’s latest deregulatory push. “These bills cross the line, and I want to interrupt this momentum,” he said. |
All but three Republicans voted to give away the store to Wall Street. Sterling leadership by the orange guy, eh? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001 Posts: 4161
|
Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2014 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How some on the left see the bill:
Quote: | Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi was the odd person out when the Democratic-led Senate and the Democratic president joined most House Republicans in backing a $1.1 trillion spending bill she opposed.
It was an unusual spot late Thursday for the veteran California lawmaker, who did as much as anyone to help President Barack Obama enact his landmark health care law and wind down the war in Iraq.
Pelosi, like many other House liberals, called the spending bill a sop to big banks and big political donors. She said she was "enormously disappointed" the White House backed it.
But she stopped short of going all out to block it, which would have involved "whipping" her fellow Democrats.
Less than three hours before the government was to run out of money, Pelosi found herself the leader of a liberal faction outnumbered by a combination of pragmatists in her party, in the GOP and in a White House that's bracing for further compromises with a Congress soon to be controlled by Republicans.
The 219-206 House vote saved Obama from embarrassment and a quick renewal of bitter partisan fights over short-term spending bills. But it couldn't hide his strained relations with Democrats who largely blame his sagging popularity for their Nov. 4 midterm election setbacks. They lost the Senate majority and a dozen House seats. Pelosi's defiance followed highly unusual public criticisms of Obama by the top aide to Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid. |
http://www.myajc.com/news/ap/political/spending-bill-cleaves-pelosi-from-obama-and-senate/njQ9M/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999 Posts: 17744 Location: Berkeley, California
|
Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2014 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The story arc is that the Tea Party will end the influence of corporations in Congress and is an upgrade. Utter nonsense:
Quote: | by Lee Fang, Republic Report.
After lobbyist-run SuperPACs and big money efforts dominated the last election, legislators are now appointing lobbyists to literally manage the day-to-day affairs of Congress. For the House Intelligence Committee, which oversees government intelligence operations and agencies, the changing of the guard means a lobbyist for Academi, the defense contractor formerly known as Blackwater, is now in charge.
Congressman Devin Nunes (R-CA), the incoming chairman of the Intelligence Committee when the House reconvenes in January, announced that Jeff Shockey will be the new Staff Director of the committee. As a paid representative of Academi, Shockey and his firm have earned $80,000 this year peddling influence on behalf of Academi.
In previous years, the House Intelligence Committee has investigated Blackwater over secret contracts with the Central Intelligence Agency. Now, the shoe is on the other foot. As Staff Director, the highest position on a committee for a staff member, Shockey will oversee the agencies that do business with his former employer.
Shockey also represents a number of other companies with business before defense agencies: General Dynamics, Koch Industries, Northrop Grumman, United Launch Alliance, Innovative Defense Technologies and Boeing.
The role reversal, for lobbyists to take brief stints in Congress after an election, has become a normalized. In a previous investigation for The Nation, we found that some corporate firms offer employment contracts with special bonuses for their staff to return to government jobs, ensuring the paycut they receive for passing through the revolving door to become public servants doesn’t have to alter their K Street lifestyle.
Other committees are also hiring lobbyists. Congessman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), Darrell Issa’s (R-CA) replacement as chair of the Oversight Committee, just hired Podesta Group lobbyist Sean McLaughlin as his new Staff Director. McLaughlin’s client list includes the Business Roundtable, a trade association for corporate CEOs of large firms. Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) also hired a new chief of staff, Mark Isakowitz, who represents BP.
This article originally appeared on Republic Report. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|