Lincoln passes "fairness ordinance" yesterday

[LutheranHusker]

Passed by a 5-0 margin, with two members abstaining due to "conflict of interest." Sounds like there's a petition effort underway to put it to a public vote.

Here's the Journal Star article on it. Thoughts?

http://journalstar.com/news/local/go...e36d44ce4.html

[Huskers57]

good vote but the right is gonna take it to a city wide election anyways...

don't like a decision, appeal, don't like a consensus, shout for re vote, it never ends. just accept it for what it is. Brown is not pleased.

[RedBlack&Blue]

Lincoln's amendment says that decisions about whether you can be hired or not hired, fired or not fired, or denied housing cannot be based on who you live with or who you have a relationship with.

So unreasonable.

I sure wish the right wingers would want to regulate JP Morgan a lot more closely than they want to regulate what goes on in consenting adults bedrooms.

[HuZkurZ]

good vote but the right is gonna take it to a city wide election anyways...

don't like a decision, appeal, don't like a consensus, shout for re vote, it never ends. just accept it for what it is. Brown is not pleased.

You mean like they're doing in Wisconsin, right?

[Huskers57]

You mean like they're doing in Wisconsin, right?

no.

[HuZkurZ]

no.

Exactly.

[Weinosker]

It's good. People shouldn't be denied employment or terminated for being gay.

I don't understand why people are so wound up that JP Morgan made a bad trade. The Feds have done the right think by forcing big banks to increase capital reserves. So, JPM was more than able to absorb the trading loss... That's capitalism at work with an overlay of regulation to protect our economy. No more regulation is needed.

[Huskers57]

Exactly.

so why are you advocating discrimination?

[HuZkurZ]

so why are you advocating discrimination?

I don't need an ordinance to tell me that it's right to treat people equally. To my point.....you believe the vote was 5-0 and that should be that, I believe you said

just accept it for what it is

Is that the way you feel about the recall of Walker in Wisconsin? You clearly made this sound like a right vs left issue.

good vote but the right is gonna take it to a city wide election anyways...

[Huskers57]

I don't need an ordinance to tell me that it's right to treat people equally. To my point.....you believe the vote was 5-0 and that should be that, I believe you said "just accept it for what it is". Is that the way you feel about the recall of Walker in Wisconsin? You clearly made this sound like a right vs left issue.

i don't even care about what's going on in Whisky.

[HuZkurZ]

i don't even care about what's going on in Whisky.

What's wrong with the community of Lincoln deciding what's best for Lincoln?

[huskerator 5000]

I don't understand why people are so wound up that JP Morgan made a bad trade. The Feds have done the right think by forcing big banks to increase capital reserves. So, JPM was more than able to absorb the trading loss... That's capitalism at work with an overlay of regulation to protect our economy. No more regulation is needed.

Isn't the concern that the bankers themselves didn't really know what their position was, and neither did the regulators? If that's true you worry that a bank might be able to take positions leading to a $200 billion loss. Sure, they might break regulations in the process and we'd be able to put them in jail after the fact. But that's little consolation if the taxpayer foots the bill. So the question is, could other regulations prevent banks from being capable of taking these kinds of positions in the first place?

[utsker]

What's wrong with the community of Lincoln deciding what's best for Lincoln?

Because then my community could run me out of town for not being one of them

[huskerator 5000]

Because then my community could run me out of town for not being one of them

I think it was Marge Simpson who said, "anyone who beats you up for wearing a shirt isn't your friend." Wise words.

[SealBeachHusker]

Passed by a 5-0 margin, with two members abstaining due to "conflict of interest." Sounds like there's a petition effort underway to put it to a public vote.

Here's the Journal Star article on it. Thoughts?

http://journalstar.com/news/local/go...e36d44ce4.html

To be honest, haven't read the ordinance, but due to it's opposition from small business, perhaps it's just lacking some of the common sense details we have discussed in previous threads. Also, sounds like it should be put to a vote, per State law anyway. In the long run, a vote is better as it will be taken as a mandate from the people...and I have no doubt that a fair and common sense amendment will be well received by the voters in Lincoln.

[Weinosker]

Isn't the concern that the bankers themselves didn't really know what their position was, and neither did the regulators? If that's true you worry that a bank might be able to take positions leading to a $200 billion loss. Sure, they might break regulations in the process and we'd be able to put them in jail after the fact. But that's little consolation if the taxpayer foots the bill. So the question is, could other regulations prevent banks from being capable of taking these kinds of positions in the first place?

Here's what you don't want: The losses to become so big that the bank can't absorb them. That doesn't appear to be the case here (thanks to increased capital reserves). In fact, you want banks to think about how to increase yields and returns. This loss has the potential to grow big enough that it may offset the profits from other business units - that's not too bad of a "worst case scenario".

Also, the right process is playing out - people involved in a bad decision are being held accountable, including the CCO of JPM.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...xecs-to-resign

[Inflation]

It's good. People shouldn't be denied employment or terminated for being gay.

I don't understand why people are so wound up that JP Morgan made a bad trade. The Feds have done the right think by forcing big banks to increase capital reserves. So, JPM was more than able to absorb the trading loss... That's capitalism at work with an overlay of regulation to protect our economy. No more regulation is needed.

If JP Morgan was a private investment company, I wouldn't care how much they made or lost. But since they are a bank, with deposits insured by the government and allowed to use the fed to borrow money at 0%, then what they are doing with depositor's money and the fed's money is a big issue. JP Morgan does not believe in a free market capitalist market, their business model is to let the government back stop their losses. If instead of losing $2 billion they had lost $2 trillion, the taxpayers would be bailing them out, again. Plus, we don't even know the value of the CDS's they have sold or purchased.

[huskernut]

I don't understand why newspapers don't link to the actual legal text as a matter of course.

Good for Lincoln (I assume, since I haven't read the text.)

[Weinosker]

If JP Morgan was a private investment company, I wouldn't care how much they made or lost. But since they are a bank, with deposits insured by the government and allowed to use the fed to borrow money at 0%, then what they are doing with depositor's money and the fed's money is a big issue. JP Morgan does not believe in a free market capitalist market, their business model is to let the government back stop their losses. If instead of losing $2 billion they had lost $2 trillion, the taxpayers would be bailing them out, again. Plus, we don't even know the value of the CDS's they have sold or purchased.

Do you think banks should not be allowed to take on risk?

[LutheranHusker]

I don't understand why newspapers don't link to the actual legal text as a matter of course.

Good for Lincoln (I assume, since I haven't read the text.)

It's on the City Council's web page. When I'm back on a regular computer if nobody's done it yet I'll find a link to the ordinance wording.