I'm certain that is part of it. Hell, they'll probably repeal Obamacare today too.

Finally some news that actually matters, thanks for posting!

Appreciate what you are doing here. Upvoted.

I fear it will have little impact on the general climate here however.

The MSM could just have made up this story and the 15yo boy could be another fake Syria kid.

The MSM still has the capability to fabricate any fake news they want and people (even here) will gobble it down willingly.

Mad world.

Thanks for a meaningful post! Much better than Bigfoot.

Nasty feeling something really shitty is going on and it is buried under all these happenings with CNN and NK. Maybe this is it? Something aint right.

Per your edit, I mean obviously this is a political assasin set up to pin war crimes on Syria...but if they have not been particularly successful, what is the point? Or do you just think we are at the point where the USG is manufacturing consent, and would accept any ruling of war crimes to go after Assad?

I have a feeling someone if not all of us will be warring soon.

The population is beginning to become aware of all the bullshit - if they can't keep us under control then what better way to throw us all into disarray that a world wide war?

Oh I believe that too. But I meant a smaller more immediate disaster, perhaps leading the way into that war.

I don't think most people pay enough attention to the doings of the UN to warrant any kind of distraction being needed.

But when was the last time any major news network kept people up to date on what the UN was doing? I agree with your first sentiment but I think with how little attention is given to the UN on a regular basis I don't think they needed to manufacture a distraction when they could have just continued to not report on this.

also trump is deregulating the banking sector.

no this is actually a good thing for small banks stop spreading disinfo

Is it good for the people though?

I answered this above.

No you didn't. Your post above does not mention people at all.

Yes, i did, but i'll try to be a bit clearer. The answer is both good and bad.

Dodd-frank did some good things for people, such as creating the consumer protection agency. Losing those perks will be terrible for people.

Dodd-frank also put small banks that helped people out of business, and made the big banks significantly bigger. Removing dodd-frank makes it possible for small banks to make a come back. Small banks generally make loans to small business. With no small banks, its been hard for small business to start/expand. Hopefully, removing dodd-frank will increase small businesses, which is a very good thing for the economy, jobs, and the public in general.

tell me how dodd-frank is good for small banks please. also, please stop this stupid "it can be good, can be bad, herp-derp!"

Are you 12? In politics, bills get passed via compromise. I'll give your side X if you give my side Y. X is good for one segment, Y another. I didn't say "it could be good or bad," i said it was good and bad because the bill is big and encompasses a lot... as most bills do... and some of the things encompassed were good for consumers and others were good for big banks.

Prior to glass stiegal being removed, regular banks were not allowed to gamble on Wall Street with depositer's money. Only investment banks could. When glass-stiegal was taken away, the economic collapse happened because regular banks lost all the deposit $ on Wall Street. The justification for bailing out the banks was that if the big banks shut down, all depositers would lose their $.

So dodd-frank was implemented. I don't remember what the exact #s are, but the rule prior was banks could only "invest" meaning loan/gamble/otherwise tie up around 85%ish of deposits on hand. The feds changed the deposit requirement to more like 70%ish. If you didn't have at least have 30%ish of your depositors cash on hand when the bill went into effect, you were shut down. None of the banks had 30% on hand, so the feds loaned the money to the big banks to keep them open, and shut down all the small banks.

As an fyi, the Obama administration never held the big banks accountable. After all the small banks were shut down, they dipped below the 30% requirement and got no punishment.

One more thing... while dodd-frank did throw some good bones to the liberals, its main purpose was a give-away to big banks. Every time the liberals tout it as a victory for the obama administration, i want to scream with anger. Solidifying the big bank monopoly is not a "victory for the people". After the bill passed, Barney frank left congress and went to work for a big bank with a 7 figure salary. Fucker. Big giant payoff for screwing over small business. Payoffs like that should be illegal.

lol. so i guess you are a bot, right?

Is that sarcasm? Or serious? Cuz if its serious, I don't see how you could think that?

Yes and no. The dodd-frank act was basically a give away to big banks and effectively shut down most small banks. The big banks did not follow the dodd-frank rules as well as they should have, and the Obama administration did nothing about it. so that part of the bill being eliminated is actually good for the general public as small banks can return. But dodd-frank did throw some very critical bones to the general public, such as the consumer protection agency. Losing those bones will actually be devastating to the general public. As with all things political, it's complicated.

WHAT?? in your other comment you just said, dodd-frank was good for small banks?? what are you talking about??

Could you provide sources for your points please

Good work! Keep doing the news please..if we don't do it none will

All those attacks in france are making sense now..

I would recommend that you repost this with a descriptive title, because I am sure some users will skim over the headline as just another complaint post. THIS is really good info, and it deserves to be properly highlighted. Very well done otherwise, O.P.

I respect that, human. Such a good post deserves to be noticed. I am so tired of the constant politics that populate the front page of this sub, so seeing this is a fresh breathe of air, like crisp mountain air in the morning.

Do you mind if others repost for you?

UN doesn't hold much weight with the US anymore.

Correct but she seems to be on the North Korea thing right now.

Oh shit

It's just funny to me that there's so much bullshit going on, and every time something is going on, you always have "that person" pointing out how it's a "distraction" towards something else.

Well, no shit there are other things going on. Hundreds of things going on that we know about. What? is each on a distraction from something else? Should we only focus on one thing at a time? Who decides that? How does that thing not distract from the hundreds of other things?

What's your point in pointing this out? Is there some priority system I don't know about?

When we all get distracted the US, EU and Israeli criminal syndicate wage illegal war crimes everywhere.

And suddenly the sky parted and the light was shown. There are like five articles mentioning the CNN bullshit, their is ONE article of this. Methinks Cambridge Analytica and ShareBlue are gaslighting to convince us to only look at the things their masters could care less, the CNN debacle being the distraction. Nice dig man.

I realized that I explained why dodd-frank was bad for small banks, but not why repealing it is good for small banks/consumers. Small banks make loans to small business. Less cash required on hand = more money to lend for existing banks. Its also a lower barrier of entry for someone who wants to start a new small bank.

You may ask if keeping only 15% on hand instead of 30% is irresponsible. The answer is that small generally banks make loans with low default rates, so 15% reserve is enough. Big banks make risky loans/gamble, so they need more cash on hand to weather defaults/losses.