It means the writer uses prose that you agree with so you don't give a ripe pig fart if it is true or not.
What we have here is a piece of unsupported rhetoric based on the video of a person testifying before congress, making several assumptions and conclusions about it, and you acting like the whole thing is the Lord's own Gospel.
Again: What have you done to VERIFY THEIR CLAIMS? First we have Born making claims before Congress. SO WHAT?!? I could go before Congress and testify I think televisions commercials need more regulations. Does that make my testimony factual? Or opinion?
Did either Born, or the writer referencing her testimony cite the legal code, showing where the holes are? Did you look up the code to see if the term "unregulated" applies, or if the better description is "under regulated" or even "badly regulated"?
The writer makes an unsupported statement, you like it, and that is your ONLY reference? Do you have anything else or not? Shall I pull up a piece of writing showing how FTL spaceships work and call it a factual reference?
The "miscommunication" is the way you accept someone's bullshit as God's truth without any farther research into whether they know shit from apple butter.
One more time: go look up the banking laws. It does not take a lawyer to see the areas which require banks to report their earnings FROM ALL SOURCES in fine detail. It is a federal law.
http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/ Look it up. Learn that the claim the government did not know "where banks were getting their money" is an outright lie. IF they "didn't know" it's because they hid their eyes and covered their ears like the "no evil" monkeys.
Also, look at the requirements of CRA, and how they apply to what banks need to include in their financial statements. Note that loan to asset ratios are included in the required data, again proving the government was fully informed what was going on:
http://www.ffiec.gov/CRA/guide.htm
Go look at FTC regulations governing the sale of financial assets (ie: outstanding loans). While the code is in legalese and therefore confusing (deliberately, I am certain) you can still make out where it actually REQUIRES loans to be packaged. Ie: a bank cannot select a few financial assets and sell them one at a time based on their merits. They are REQUIRED to do what they did. That is the LAW. The banks were not "secretive" about it - they were doing what the law demanded.
http://accountinginfo.com/financial-...860-20-166.htm
In short, look at the FACTS, instead of a bunch of unsupported rhetoric. All you have now is an article based on someone's unsupported testimony. I have the actual laws and how they apply to the financial industry.
Bookmarks