Knickoftime wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/897478270442143744

26 hours later.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/897869174323728385

No, you didn't.

You can't make this **** up. The true story is that the members of the council were all about to resign due to Trumps comments on Tuesday, so to get in front of that bad news he decided to "disband" the committees before they could formally resign.

gunsnewing wrote:Majority Of you are lost. I'll pray for you

This is what they call in psychology "projection'

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:The point man on all the deregulation during the Clinton years was his own Secretary of the Treasury, who he appointed. No pass.

Sorry, Obama had 8 years. There were countless fines issued in that time, with no jail time or admission of guilt in many cases. One big reason there was such a huge blowout of the Dems in the midterms is because no one was held accountable for the crash. Wall Street got bailed out, and Main Street got the shaft. People saw that.

Obama hired some of the same people who caused the crash to run a Wall Street friendly administration, instead of hiring reformers. Americans saw that, they knew it was more of the same. Thats one of the reasons we see these facists marching in the street.

Its an old story. After a period of great economic upheaval, people like Trump move in, and try to exploit the anger. Democrats have to offer a real alternative, real policies, to counter all the craziness. They have been sitting on their hands too long.

Thats one thing that many Dems seem to agree on, as well as independents.

Dude let's stop the BS. NOTHING had a greater negative impact than the Great Recession and Stock Market Crash. All those lost jobs and lost wealth was the issue and not a lack of Wall Street Prosecutions.

I think you're grossly overstating the impact of a lack of Wall Street Prosecutions as the reasons for the Republicans taking over the House. What would that have done to stop foreclosures, increase wages or create more jobs? The MASSIVE loss of wealth was the real issue. There simply wasn't enough time to repair all that damage and the Voters took it out on the Dems which was STUPID because the Republicans almost to a man represent Big Business to such a degree that it's impossible for them to enact legislation that benefits Workers, the Poor, Minorities or the Elderly.

You're sighting one sliver of the much bigger problem. Wall Street Bankers going to jail doesn't fix the entire Economy even if they deserved it. The SYSTEM would still be in place with new faces in charge. It wouldn't have stopped the Massive profits and gains of Wall Street.

Lots of sophistry here. The damage from foreclosures had already been done, in part due to the massive deregulation, the unwillingness by the Clinton administration to regulate derivatives.

No, prosecutions wouldnt have stopped something that has already happened, clearly not arguing that. Prosecutions were to deter executives, and firms from engaging in risky, if not criminal behavior in the future.

You tell a person or a firm that you have get out of jail free card for the right price, that the price will pale to the overall profits. Of course people will keep doing what they are doing and just pay the fine. Not sure why this is so controversial. 8 years to build cases.

So here we are today, with the banks bigger than ever, the conditions that caused the crash still in place.

Obama's foreclosure relief plan was really a backdoor way to help the banks, the people his plan was supposed to protect Americans from. There was also not enough pushback on all the robosigning going on.

Millions of people were affected by these decisions, and you really believe they couldn't see what was going on in their own backyard?

I'm telling you that those who voted in the Republicans worked against their own best interests. In Fact Obama could've accomplished more the help those very same voters if NOT for the Republicans working against him from day one all the way thru his Presidency. A few Jailed Bankers would NOT have done anything but make a few people feel good but the nature of the system doesn't change because of that.

You also are leaving out Dodd-Frank and the Republican Efforts to weaken and slow down it's implementation.

1. The Volcker Rule

WHAT: The Volcker Rule intends to prevent commercial banks from engaging in speculative activities and proprietary trading for profit. In particular, it limits banks’ investments in hedge funds and private equity funds.

WHY: Commercial banks’ proprietary trading activities played a major role in the 2008 crisis. As a result, the banks experienced losses that placed depositors’ funds—and in turn, taxpayers’ dollars—at risk. By enacting the Volcker Rule, the government aims to regulate this kind of activity to keep depositors’ money safe.

WHO: The rule is named after former Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volcker, who is an elder statesman of financial matters and encouraged President Obama to include such a measure as part of financial reform.

WHEN: Regulators finalized the Volcker Rule in April 2014. Banks were required to comply by July 2015.

2. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

WHAT: The CFPB was created as an independent financial regulator to oversee consumer finance markets, including mortgages, student loans, and credit cards. The CFPB can write new rules, supervise certain financial companies, and enforce consumer protection laws through fines and other measures. (For example, the CFPB has already required major credit card issuers to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to consumers for deceptive credit card practices.)

WHY: Prior to the CFPB’s creation, there was no single authority whose primary responsibility was preventing consumer abuse or predatory practices in financial markets. The CFPB also aims to inform and educate consumers on financial matters, empowering them to take control of their own finances and understand their money’s trajectories.

WHO: The agency is Senator Elizabeth Warren’s brainchild, but President Obama did not believe she could be confirmed by the Senate to lead it. Instead of Senator Warren, Richard Cordray, the former Attorney General of Ohio, is the CFPB’s first and current director.

WHEN: The CFPB launched on July 11, 2011.

3. Capital and liquidity requirements

WHAT: The Federal Reserve set new standards for the amount and type of capital that banks and other depository institutions must have to protect against their exposures. The largest institutions, including Citibank, Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs, will be required to hold up to 9.5 percent of their assets in liquid capital (such as cash, government bonds, or other assets that are deemed to have a very low risk profile). However, some critics say this capital cushion is still far too low for the largest financial institutions.

WHY: Before the financial crisis, some large financial institutions had leverage ratios of roughly 50 to 1—in other words, they only had $1 in capital to protect against every $50 in liabilities. When the value of mortgage-related assets began to decline, firms’ balance sheets were quickly wiped out and the Federal Reserve was forced to step in to recapitalize them (with the exception of the failure of Lehman Brothers), or else allow further chaos in the financial system and broader economy. The new requirements will help ensure that banks can stay afloat significantly longer in case this happens again, without the drastic government bailouts necessary last time.

WHEN: A number of rules are going into effect on a rolling basis according to international standards. The largest financial institutions are required to meet the new capital standards by 2019, which means they will have leverage ratios nearer to 10 to 1—far more sustainable than before the financial crisis.

4. The Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) and designations

WHAT: The FSOC is an interagency group composed of heads and deputies of the Treasury Department and independent financial regulators to identify and monitor risks to the financial system. Its most important initial responsibility is designating systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs)—in other words, large, financially interconnected non-banks like AIG—for enhanced capital standards and regulation by the Federal Reserve.

WHY: The 2008 financial crisis proved that unsupervised non-banks were deeply engaged in financial activities that could put the broader financial system at risk. The most infamous non-bank bailout was the multinational insurance firm AIG, which required an $180 billion rescue from the federal government after it sold massive amounts of insurance without hedging its investments, as well as sold credit default swaps without adequate collateral or capital reserves.

WHEN: The first SIFI designations occurred in the summer of 2013 and included AIG, GE Capital, and Prudential Financial. Since then, the FSOC has also designated MetLife for enhanced supervision.

5. Derivatives regulations

WHAT: The Dodd-Frank Act gave the Securities Exchange Commission and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission authority to regulate “over-the-counter” derivatives trading. (“Over-the-counter” refers to a type of financial trade that is negotiated and carried out by private parties, rather than on a formal exchange, such as the New York Stock Exchange.) The Dodd-Frank Act also mandated that firms buying and selling derivatives need to use clearinghouses to do so. Clearinghouses are intended to reduce overall risk in the market by requiring collateral deposits and monitoring the credit-worthiness of firms engaged in derivatives trades. Clearinghouses are strongly capitalized in order to pay out losses if a firm defaults on its obligations.

WHY: When large numbers of homeowners defaulted on their mortgages in 2008, institutions with exposure to large amounts of certain types of derivatives linked to mortgages were wiped out, requiring cash infusions from the Federal Reserve to prevent outright collapse. These types of unregulated derivatives allowed too much risk to become distributed opaquely throughout the financial system and helped obscure the fact that system-wide capital reserves failed to match it.

WHEN: Ongoing. Roughly three-quarters of the 87 new derivatives rules required in the Dodd-Frank Act have been finalized.
6. Too Big to Fail and Living Wills

WHAT: The Dodd-Frank Act gave the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation “orderly liquidation authority”—in other words, the ability to wind down a large, failing financial institution as an alternative to bankruptcy. Large banks are also required to create “living wills,” or detailed plans that explain how they would manage their own failure without contaminating the broader financial system.

WHY: These measures are aimed at preventing market chaos and ensuring the government won’t need to provide another costly bailout in the event that a large financial institution fails. If banks are ultimately unable to submit acceptable plans, they could be required to break into smaller institutions.

WHEN: Ongoing. Regulators are currently considering whether the largest banks’ living wills are credible plans; in 2014, they sent the banks back to the drawing board after earlier versions were all rejected as inadequate.

https://fin.plaid.com/articles/major-provisions-of-the-wall-street-reform-and-consumer

All that was fine but it didnt go far enough to prevent all the over-leveraging that is still going on. Stock buybacks are still legal as well. They used to be illegal because its like steroids, an artificial boost to the company's stock value, and benefits mostly top executives and wealthy shareholders. Companies are putting their firms deep in debt to buy back stock, and gobble up other companies. Resulting in less competition as well.

You do realize that you are arguing that jailing people who have robbed tens of millions of Americans of their life savings, of literally hundreds of billions of dollars, would serve no purpose?

I really hate to break it to you Nix, but that is at the core of conservative thought these days. The only reason you seem to be agreeing with this worldview is that it was promoted by a democratic president.

If laws wont stop people from breaking them, why have any laws in the first place? So I guess the only people who should face justice for their crimes are the poor.

Nix meltdown in 5,4,3,2,1......

Don't let the Perfect be the enemy of the Good!!!

When I present you with facts that more was done than you're trying to present you seek to minimize it. Let's be clear there was NOTHING before Dodd-Frank and now there is something and it can always be argued that more is needed. This is the same kind of thinking that tries to diminish the ACA because it's not perfect and of course more could be done. IN A VACUUM yes, but that's not reality. You speak of these things as if they're EASY and there would be no pushback or consequences. You speak as if you have it all figured out and i'm saying things were NOT as EASY or clear cut as you represent.

I'm not arguing that no one deserved to be prosecuted. I'm saying that you're wrong if you think that would've had more of an impact on the daily lives of the poor and middle class. It would've done NOTHING to repair the damage that had been done.
It wouldn't have done as much as Dodd-Frank to at least address the cause and possible damages of a repeat of the Financial Crash. See you're only talking about punishment and prosecution and i'm talking about real remedies to the problems that could actually be accomplished with republican resistance.

A LOT more good was done than you are giving credit to Obama and the Dems. They could've accomplished so much more if not for the Republicans many detrimental actions which caused a loss of Billions and kept Millions from having Health Care. You need to remember that kind of thinking is how we ended up with TRUMP!!! Progressives and Independents thinking a vote of conscience or a protest vote or not voting at all was the answer. "I'll show Hillary and those wall street Dems" FOH!

Dodd-Frank did very little if anything. Clinton had the ability to veto the repeal of Glass Stegall and didn't. Your argument that he was in a tough spot is preposterous. You get elected president to deal with tough situation and still do the right thing. You talk about holding voters to higher standards - fantastic. Those voters are still waiting for you to hold the Clintons and Obamas to a higher standard as well.

I am NOT saying that one act would have stopped the tide but he basically allowed it to gather momentum. The core of our issues with the economy really goes back to the erosion of the production based economy and the advent of derivatives. The other piece of Clinton legislation that played into this was NAFTA. You can argue each in a vacuum but those two things took out whatever chances the middle class had at surviving. My opinion.

Obama didn't make the economy better, yes there are less people without jobs, but those jobs are not the same. This is the hard truth about using binary measures like- Do you have a job? Yes it No. It completely ignores the fact that one regular blue collar middle class job on the old economy was more valuable than 5-10 of the jobs at minimum wage today if you factor in inflation.

GustavBahler wrote:

nixluva wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:The point man on all the deregulation during the Clinton years was his own Secretary of the Treasury, who he appointed. No pass.

Sorry, Obama had 8 years. There were countless fines issued in that time, with no jail time or admission of guilt in many cases. One big reason there was such a huge blowout of the Dems in the midterms is because no one was held accountable for the crash. Wall Street got bailed out, and Main Street got the shaft. People saw that.

Obama hired some of the same people who caused the crash to run a Wall Street friendly administration, instead of hiring reformers. Americans saw that, they knew it was more of the same. Thats one of the reasons we see these facists marching in the street.

Its an old story. After a period of great economic upheaval, people like Trump move in, and try to exploit the anger. Democrats have to offer a real alternative, real policies, to counter all the craziness. They have been sitting on their hands too long.

Thats one thing that many Dems seem to agree on, as well as independents.

Dude let's stop the BS. NOTHING had a greater negative impact than the Great Recession and Stock Market Crash. All those lost jobs and lost wealth was the issue and not a lack of Wall Street Prosecutions.

I think you're grossly overstating the impact of a lack of Wall Street Prosecutions as the reasons for the Republicans taking over the House. What would that have done to stop foreclosures, increase wages or create more jobs? The MASSIVE loss of wealth was the real issue. There simply wasn't enough time to repair all that damage and the Voters took it out on the Dems which was STUPID because the Republicans almost to a man represent Big Business to such a degree that it's impossible for them to enact legislation that benefits Workers, the Poor, Minorities or the Elderly.

You're sighting one sliver of the much bigger problem. Wall Street Bankers going to jail doesn't fix the entire Economy even if they deserved it. The SYSTEM would still be in place with new faces in charge. It wouldn't have stopped the Massive profits and gains of Wall Street.

Lots of sophistry here. The damage from foreclosures had already been done, in part due to the massive deregulation, the unwillingness by the Clinton administration to regulate derivatives.

No, prosecutions wouldnt have stopped something that has already happened, clearly not arguing that. Prosecutions were to deter executives, and firms from engaging in risky, if not criminal behavior in the future.

You tell a person or a firm that you have get out of jail free card for the right price, that the price will pale to the overall profits. Of course people will keep doing what they are doing and just pay the fine. Not sure why this is so controversial. 8 years to build cases.

So here we are today, with the banks bigger than ever, the conditions that caused the crash still in place.

Obama's foreclosure relief plan was really a backdoor way to help the banks, the people his plan was supposed to protect Americans from. There was also not enough pushback on all the robosigning going on.

Millions of people were affected by these decisions, and you really believe they couldn't see what was going on in their own backyard?

I'm telling you that those who voted in the Republicans worked against their own best interests. In Fact Obama could've accomplished more the help those very same voters if NOT for the Republicans working against him from day one all the way thru his Presidency. A few Jailed Bankers would NOT have done anything but make a few people feel good but the nature of the system doesn't change because of that.

You also are leaving out Dodd-Frank and the Republican Efforts to weaken and slow down it's implementation.

1. The Volcker Rule

WHAT: The Volcker Rule intends to prevent commercial banks from engaging in speculative activities and proprietary trading for profit. In particular, it limits banks’ investments in hedge funds and private equity funds.

WHY: Commercial banks’ proprietary trading activities played a major role in the 2008 crisis. As a result, the banks experienced losses that placed depositors’ funds—and in turn, taxpayers’ dollars—at risk. By enacting the Volcker Rule, the government aims to regulate this kind of activity to keep depositors’ money safe.

WHO: The rule is named after former Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volcker, who is an elder statesman of financial matters and encouraged President Obama to include such a measure as part of financial reform.

WHEN: Regulators finalized the Volcker Rule in April 2014. Banks were required to comply by July 2015.

2. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

WHAT: The CFPB was created as an independent financial regulator to oversee consumer finance markets, including mortgages, student loans, and credit cards. The CFPB can write new rules, supervise certain financial companies, and enforce consumer protection laws through fines and other measures. (For example, the CFPB has already required major credit card issuers to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to consumers for deceptive credit card practices.)

WHY: Prior to the CFPB’s creation, there was no single authority whose primary responsibility was preventing consumer abuse or predatory practices in financial markets. The CFPB also aims to inform and educate consumers on financial matters, empowering them to take control of their own finances and understand their money’s trajectories.

WHO: The agency is Senator Elizabeth Warren’s brainchild, but President Obama did not believe she could be confirmed by the Senate to lead it. Instead of Senator Warren, Richard Cordray, the former Attorney General of Ohio, is the CFPB’s first and current director.

WHEN: The CFPB launched on July 11, 2011.

3. Capital and liquidity requirements

WHAT: The Federal Reserve set new standards for the amount and type of capital that banks and other depository institutions must have to protect against their exposures. The largest institutions, including Citibank, Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs, will be required to hold up to 9.5 percent of their assets in liquid capital (such as cash, government bonds, or other assets that are deemed to have a very low risk profile). However, some critics say this capital cushion is still far too low for the largest financial institutions.

WHY: Before the financial crisis, some large financial institutions had leverage ratios of roughly 50 to 1—in other words, they only had $1 in capital to protect against every $50 in liabilities. When the value of mortgage-related assets began to decline, firms’ balance sheets were quickly wiped out and the Federal Reserve was forced to step in to recapitalize them (with the exception of the failure of Lehman Brothers), or else allow further chaos in the financial system and broader economy. The new requirements will help ensure that banks can stay afloat significantly longer in case this happens again, without the drastic government bailouts necessary last time.

WHEN: A number of rules are going into effect on a rolling basis according to international standards. The largest financial institutions are required to meet the new capital standards by 2019, which means they will have leverage ratios nearer to 10 to 1—far more sustainable than before the financial crisis.

4. The Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) and designations

WHAT: The FSOC is an interagency group composed of heads and deputies of the Treasury Department and independent financial regulators to identify and monitor risks to the financial system. Its most important initial responsibility is designating systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs)—in other words, large, financially interconnected non-banks like AIG—for enhanced capital standards and regulation by the Federal Reserve.

WHY: The 2008 financial crisis proved that unsupervised non-banks were deeply engaged in financial activities that could put the broader financial system at risk. The most infamous non-bank bailout was the multinational insurance firm AIG, which required an $180 billion rescue from the federal government after it sold massive amounts of insurance without hedging its investments, as well as sold credit default swaps without adequate collateral or capital reserves.

WHEN: The first SIFI designations occurred in the summer of 2013 and included AIG, GE Capital, and Prudential Financial. Since then, the FSOC has also designated MetLife for enhanced supervision.

5. Derivatives regulations

WHAT: The Dodd-Frank Act gave the Securities Exchange Commission and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission authority to regulate “over-the-counter” derivatives trading. (“Over-the-counter” refers to a type of financial trade that is negotiated and carried out by private parties, rather than on a formal exchange, such as the New York Stock Exchange.) The Dodd-Frank Act also mandated that firms buying and selling derivatives need to use clearinghouses to do so. Clearinghouses are intended to reduce overall risk in the market by requiring collateral deposits and monitoring the credit-worthiness of firms engaged in derivatives trades. Clearinghouses are strongly capitalized in order to pay out losses if a firm defaults on its obligations.

WHY: When large numbers of homeowners defaulted on their mortgages in 2008, institutions with exposure to large amounts of certain types of derivatives linked to mortgages were wiped out, requiring cash infusions from the Federal Reserve to prevent outright collapse. These types of unregulated derivatives allowed too much risk to become distributed opaquely throughout the financial system and helped obscure the fact that system-wide capital reserves failed to match it.

WHEN: Ongoing. Roughly three-quarters of the 87 new derivatives rules required in the Dodd-Frank Act have been finalized.
6. Too Big to Fail and Living Wills

WHAT: The Dodd-Frank Act gave the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation “orderly liquidation authority”—in other words, the ability to wind down a large, failing financial institution as an alternative to bankruptcy. Large banks are also required to create “living wills,” or detailed plans that explain how they would manage their own failure without contaminating the broader financial system.

WHY: These measures are aimed at preventing market chaos and ensuring the government won’t need to provide another costly bailout in the event that a large financial institution fails. If banks are ultimately unable to submit acceptable plans, they could be required to break into smaller institutions.

WHEN: Ongoing. Regulators are currently considering whether the largest banks’ living wills are credible plans; in 2014, they sent the banks back to the drawing board after earlier versions were all rejected as inadequate.

https://fin.plaid.com/articles/major-provisions-of-the-wall-street-reform-and-consumer

All that was fine but it didnt go far enough to prevent all the over-leveraging that is still going on. Stock buybacks are still legal as well. They used to be illegal because its like steroids, an artificial boost to the company's stock value, and benefits mostly top executives and wealthy shareholders. Companies are putting their firms deep in debt to buy back stock, and gobble up other companies. Resulting in less competition as well.

You do realize that you are arguing that jailing people who have robbed tens of millions of Americans of their life savings, of literally hundreds of billions of dollars, would serve no purpose?

I really hate to break it to you Nix, but that is at the core of conservative thought these days. The only reason you seem to be agreeing with this worldview is that it was promoted by a democratic president.

If laws wont stop people from breaking them, why have any laws in the first place? So I guess the only people who should face justice for their crimes are the poor.

Nix meltdown in 5,4,3,2,1......

Don't let the Perfect be the enemy of the Good!!!

When I present you with facts that more was done than you're trying to present you seek to minimize it. Let's be clear there was NOTHING before Dodd-Frank and now there is something and it can always be argued that more is needed. This is the same kind of thinking that tries to diminish the ACA because it's not perfect and of course more could be done. IN A VACUUM yes, but that's not reality. You speak of these things as if they're EASY and there would be no pushback or consequences. You speak as if you have it all figured out and i'm saying things were NOT as EASY or clear cut as you represent.

I'm not arguing that no one deserved to be prosecuted. I'm saying that you're wrong if you think that would've had more of an impact on the daily lives of the poor and middle class. It would've done NOTHING to repair the damage that had been done.
It wouldn't have done as much as Dodd-Frank to at least address the cause and possible damages of a repeat of the Financial Crash. See you're only talking about punishment and prosecution and i'm talking about real remedies to the problems that could actually be accomplished with republican resistance.

A LOT more good was done than you are giving credit to Obama and the Dems. They could've accomplished so much more if not for the Republicans many detrimental actions which caused a loss of Billions and kept Millions from having Health Care. You need to remember that kind of thinking is how we ended up with TRUMP!!! Progressives and Independents thinking a vote of conscience or a protest vote or not voting at all was the answer. "I'll show Hillary and those wall street Dems" FOH!

Dodd-Frank did very little if anything. Clinton had the ability to veto the repeal of Glass Stegall and didn't. Your argument that he was in a tough spot is preposterous. You get elected president to deal with tough situation and still do the right thing. You talk about holding voters to higher standards - fantastic. Those voters are still waiting for you to hold the Clintons and Obamas to a higher standard as well.

I am NOT saying that one act would have stopped the tide but he basically allowed it to gather momentum. The core of our issues with the economy really goes back to the erosion of the production based economy and the advent of derivatives. The other piece of Clinton legislation that played into this was NAFTA. You can argue each in a vacuum but those two things took out whatever chances the middle class had at surviving. My opinion.

Obama didn't make the economy better, yes there are less people without jobs, but those jobs are not the same. This is the hard truth about using binary measures like- Do you have a job? Yes it No. It completely ignores the fact that one regular blue collar middle class job on the old economy was more valuable than 5-10 of the jobs at minimum wage today if you factor in inflation.

Bill Clinton moved to the Right because Dems had only had the Presidency 4 out of 20 years!!! We can hate on him for his moving to the right but context does matter!

Presidents are not KINGS and as such it is in FACT possible for a President to be in a tough spot. In fact Congress can pass Veto Proof Legislation and render the President impotent.

Congress can override the veto via a two-thirds vote with both houses voting separately, after which the bill becomes law. ... The president cannot veto a bill due to inaction; once the bill has been received by the president, the chief executive has thirty days to veto the bill.

I'm so tired of this BS that Progressive PURISTS keep pushing as if there's no resistance to Progressive Ideas when in fact there is GREAT resistance to these things. So if an ACA or Dodd-Frank does manage to get passed even tho flawed it's not something to look down on. IT'S F'N PROGRESS. PURISTS are part of the reason we have Trump and a Republican Congress now and how's that a good thing for Progressive Policies. Republicans win cuz they are much more ruthless and they recognize that at a certain point they have to be united. Dems have factions that push for purity even if it detrimental to their ultimate goals.

So IMO F all the Progressives that piss on Obama or Hillary for PURITY's sake. F THEM ALL. All you really did was screw the country! The smart move would be to at least make sure that the Dems were in charge and then hold them accountable to passing legislation with progressive ideals. We're so busy fighting ourselves that we allowed the Republicans to swoop in and TRASH the small gains we did have. How the F is that good for anyone?

I cant blame you seeing how progressives exploded income inequality. Turned the economy over to the financial services industry. Made 1984 look like disneyland. Were responsible for the largest gap between rich and poor in more than a millienia

Lets not forget forget the crime bill that put more African Americans in prison than in Stalin's gulags. Not to mention how they took money and looked the other way while wages stayed flat for the better part of 40 years. Yes lets blame a minority in this country who sounded the alarm to this casino culture for years. Never mind those who were perrenial apologists for some of the most craven behavior one could imagine. It was the progressives who turned the Democratic party into a club for the very rich, and those who would bend over and take it up the ass for them.

nixluva wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:The point man on all the deregulation during the Clinton years was his own Secretary of the Treasury, who he appointed. No pass.

Sorry, Obama had 8 years. There were countless fines issued in that time, with no jail time or admission of guilt in many cases. One big reason there was such a huge blowout of the Dems in the midterms is because no one was held accountable for the crash. Wall Street got bailed out, and Main Street got the shaft. People saw that.

Obama hired some of the same people who caused the crash to run a Wall Street friendly administration, instead of hiring reformers. Americans saw that, they knew it was more of the same. Thats one of the reasons we see these facists marching in the street.

Its an old story. After a period of great economic upheaval, people like Trump move in, and try to exploit the anger. Democrats have to offer a real alternative, real policies, to counter all the craziness. They have been sitting on their hands too long.

Thats one thing that many Dems seem to agree on, as well as independents.

Dude let's stop the BS. NOTHING had a greater negative impact than the Great Recession and Stock Market Crash. All those lost jobs and lost wealth was the issue and not a lack of Wall Street Prosecutions.

I think you're grossly overstating the impact of a lack of Wall Street Prosecutions as the reasons for the Republicans taking over the House. What would that have done to stop foreclosures, increase wages or create more jobs? The MASSIVE loss of wealth was the real issue. There simply wasn't enough time to repair all that damage and the Voters took it out on the Dems which was STUPID because the Republicans almost to a man represent Big Business to such a degree that it's impossible for them to enact legislation that benefits Workers, the Poor, Minorities or the Elderly.

You're sighting one sliver of the much bigger problem. Wall Street Bankers going to jail doesn't fix the entire Economy even if they deserved it. The SYSTEM would still be in place with new faces in charge. It wouldn't have stopped the Massive profits and gains of Wall Street.

Lots of sophistry here. The damage from foreclosures had already been done, in part due to the massive deregulation, the unwillingness by the Clinton administration to regulate derivatives.

No, prosecutions wouldnt have stopped something that has already happened, clearly not arguing that. Prosecutions were to deter executives, and firms from engaging in risky, if not criminal behavior in the future.

You tell a person or a firm that you have get out of jail free card for the right price, that the price will pale to the overall profits. Of course people will keep doing what they are doing and just pay the fine. Not sure why this is so controversial. 8 years to build cases.

So here we are today, with the banks bigger than ever, the conditions that caused the crash still in place.

Obama's foreclosure relief plan was really a backdoor way to help the banks, the people his plan was supposed to protect Americans from. There was also not enough pushback on all the robosigning going on.

Millions of people were affected by these decisions, and you really believe they couldn't see what was going on in their own backyard?

I'm telling you that those who voted in the Republicans worked against their own best interests. In Fact Obama could've accomplished more the help those very same voters if NOT for the Republicans working against him from day one all the way thru his Presidency. A few Jailed Bankers would NOT have done anything but make a few people feel good but the nature of the system doesn't change because of that.

You also are leaving out Dodd-Frank and the Republican Efforts to weaken and slow down it's implementation.

1. The Volcker Rule

WHAT: The Volcker Rule intends to prevent commercial banks from engaging in speculative activities and proprietary trading for profit. In particular, it limits banks’ investments in hedge funds and private equity funds.

WHY: Commercial banks’ proprietary trading activities played a major role in the 2008 crisis. As a result, the banks experienced losses that placed depositors’ funds—and in turn, taxpayers’ dollars—at risk. By enacting the Volcker Rule, the government aims to regulate this kind of activity to keep depositors’ money safe.

WHO: The rule is named after former Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volcker, who is an elder statesman of financial matters and encouraged President Obama to include such a measure as part of financial reform.

WHEN: Regulators finalized the Volcker Rule in April 2014. Banks were required to comply by July 2015.

2. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

WHAT: The CFPB was created as an independent financial regulator to oversee consumer finance markets, including mortgages, student loans, and credit cards. The CFPB can write new rules, supervise certain financial companies, and enforce consumer protection laws through fines and other measures. (For example, the CFPB has already required major credit card issuers to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to consumers for deceptive credit card practices.)

WHY: Prior to the CFPB’s creation, there was no single authority whose primary responsibility was preventing consumer abuse or predatory practices in financial markets. The CFPB also aims to inform and educate consumers on financial matters, empowering them to take control of their own finances and understand their money’s trajectories.

WHO: The agency is Senator Elizabeth Warren’s brainchild, but President Obama did not believe she could be confirmed by the Senate to lead it. Instead of Senator Warren, Richard Cordray, the former Attorney General of Ohio, is the CFPB’s first and current director.

WHEN: The CFPB launched on July 11, 2011.

3. Capital and liquidity requirements

WHAT: The Federal Reserve set new standards for the amount and type of capital that banks and other depository institutions must have to protect against their exposures. The largest institutions, including Citibank, Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs, will be required to hold up to 9.5 percent of their assets in liquid capital (such as cash, government bonds, or other assets that are deemed to have a very low risk profile). However, some critics say this capital cushion is still far too low for the largest financial institutions.

WHY: Before the financial crisis, some large financial institutions had leverage ratios of roughly 50 to 1—in other words, they only had $1 in capital to protect against every $50 in liabilities. When the value of mortgage-related assets began to decline, firms’ balance sheets were quickly wiped out and the Federal Reserve was forced to step in to recapitalize them (with the exception of the failure of Lehman Brothers), or else allow further chaos in the financial system and broader economy. The new requirements will help ensure that banks can stay afloat significantly longer in case this happens again, without the drastic government bailouts necessary last time.

WHEN: A number of rules are going into effect on a rolling basis according to international standards. The largest financial institutions are required to meet the new capital standards by 2019, which means they will have leverage ratios nearer to 10 to 1—far more sustainable than before the financial crisis.

4. The Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) and designations

WHAT: The FSOC is an interagency group composed of heads and deputies of the Treasury Department and independent financial regulators to identify and monitor risks to the financial system. Its most important initial responsibility is designating systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs)—in other words, large, financially interconnected non-banks like AIG—for enhanced capital standards and regulation by the Federal Reserve.

WHY: The 2008 financial crisis proved that unsupervised non-banks were deeply engaged in financial activities that could put the broader financial system at risk. The most infamous non-bank bailout was the multinational insurance firm AIG, which required an $180 billion rescue from the federal government after it sold massive amounts of insurance without hedging its investments, as well as sold credit default swaps without adequate collateral or capital reserves.

WHEN: The first SIFI designations occurred in the summer of 2013 and included AIG, GE Capital, and Prudential Financial. Since then, the FSOC has also designated MetLife for enhanced supervision.

5. Derivatives regulations

WHAT: The Dodd-Frank Act gave the Securities Exchange Commission and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission authority to regulate “over-the-counter” derivatives trading. (“Over-the-counter” refers to a type of financial trade that is negotiated and carried out by private parties, rather than on a formal exchange, such as the New York Stock Exchange.) The Dodd-Frank Act also mandated that firms buying and selling derivatives need to use clearinghouses to do so. Clearinghouses are intended to reduce overall risk in the market by requiring collateral deposits and monitoring the credit-worthiness of firms engaged in derivatives trades. Clearinghouses are strongly capitalized in order to pay out losses if a firm defaults on its obligations.

WHY: When large numbers of homeowners defaulted on their mortgages in 2008, institutions with exposure to large amounts of certain types of derivatives linked to mortgages were wiped out, requiring cash infusions from the Federal Reserve to prevent outright collapse. These types of unregulated derivatives allowed too much risk to become distributed opaquely throughout the financial system and helped obscure the fact that system-wide capital reserves failed to match it.

WHEN: Ongoing. Roughly three-quarters of the 87 new derivatives rules required in the Dodd-Frank Act have been finalized.
6. Too Big to Fail and Living Wills

WHAT: The Dodd-Frank Act gave the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation “orderly liquidation authority”—in other words, the ability to wind down a large, failing financial institution as an alternative to bankruptcy. Large banks are also required to create “living wills,” or detailed plans that explain how they would manage their own failure without contaminating the broader financial system.

WHY: These measures are aimed at preventing market chaos and ensuring the government won’t need to provide another costly bailout in the event that a large financial institution fails. If banks are ultimately unable to submit acceptable plans, they could be required to break into smaller institutions.

WHEN: Ongoing. Regulators are currently considering whether the largest banks’ living wills are credible plans; in 2014, they sent the banks back to the drawing board after earlier versions were all rejected as inadequate.

https://fin.plaid.com/articles/major-provisions-of-the-wall-street-reform-and-consumer

All that was fine but it didnt go far enough to prevent all the over-leveraging that is still going on. Stock buybacks are still legal as well. They used to be illegal because its like steroids, an artificial boost to the company's stock value, and benefits mostly top executives and wealthy shareholders. Companies are putting their firms deep in debt to buy back stock, and gobble up other companies. Resulting in less competition as well.

You do realize that you are arguing that jailing people who have robbed tens of millions of Americans of their life savings, of literally hundreds of billions of dollars, would serve no purpose?

I really hate to break it to you Nix, but that is at the core of conservative thought these days. The only reason you seem to be agreeing with this worldview is that it was promoted by a democratic president.

If laws wont stop people from breaking them, why have any laws in the first place? So I guess the only people who should face justice for their crimes are the poor.

Nix meltdown in 5,4,3,2,1......

Don't let the Perfect be the enemy of the Good!!!

When I present you with facts that more was done than you're trying to present you seek to minimize it. Let's be clear there was NOTHING before Dodd-Frank and now there is something and it can always be argued that more is needed. This is the same kind of thinking that tries to diminish the ACA because it's not perfect and of course more could be done. IN A VACUUM yes, but that's not reality. You speak of these things as if they're EASY and there would be no pushback or consequences. You speak as if you have it all figured out and i'm saying things were NOT as EASY or clear cut as you represent.

I'm not arguing that no one deserved to be prosecuted. I'm saying that you're wrong if you think that would've had more of an impact on the daily lives of the poor and middle class. It would've done NOTHING to repair the damage that had been done.
It wouldn't have done as much as Dodd-Frank to at least address the cause and possible damages of a repeat of the Financial Crash. See you're only talking about punishment and prosecution and i'm talking about real remedies to the problems that could actually be accomplished with republican resistance.

A LOT more good was done than you are giving credit to Obama and the Dems. They could've accomplished so much more if not for the Republicans many detrimental actions which caused a loss of Billions and kept Millions from having Health Care. You need to remember that kind of thinking is how we ended up with TRUMP!!! Progressives and Independents thinking a vote of conscience or a protest vote or not voting at all was the answer. "I'll show Hillary and those wall street Dems" FOH!

Dodd-Frank did very little if anything. Clinton had the ability to veto the repeal of Glass Stegall and didn't. Your argument that he was in a tough spot is preposterous. You get elected president to deal with tough situation and still do the right thing. You talk about holding voters to higher standards - fantastic. Those voters are still waiting for you to hold the Clintons and Obamas to a higher standard as well.

I am NOT saying that one act would have stopped the tide but he basically allowed it to gather momentum. The core of our issues with the economy really goes back to the erosion of the production based economy and the advent of derivatives. The other piece of Clinton legislation that played into this was NAFTA. You can argue each in a vacuum but those two things took out whatever chances the middle class had at surviving. My opinion.

Obama didn't make the economy better, yes there are less people without jobs, but those jobs are not the same. This is the hard truth about using binary measures like- Do you have a job? Yes it No. It completely ignores the fact that one regular blue collar middle class job on the old economy was more valuable than 5-10 of the jobs at minimum wage today if you factor in inflation.

Bill Clinton moved to the Right because Dems had only had the Presidency 4 out of 20 years!!! We can hate on him for his moving to the right but context does matter!

Presidents are not KINGS and as such it is in FACT possible for a President to be in a tough spot. In fact Congress can pass Veto Proof Legislation and render the President impotent.

Congress can override the veto via a two-thirds vote with both houses voting separately, after which the bill becomes law. ... The president cannot veto a bill due to inaction; once the bill has been received by the president, the chief executive has thirty days to veto the bill.

I'm so tired of this BS that Progressive PURISTS keep pushing as if there's no resistance to Progressive Ideas when in fact there is GREAT resistance to these things. So if an ACA or Dodd-Frank does manage to get passed even tho flawed it's not something to look down on. IT'S F'N PROGRESS. PURISTS are part of the reason we have Trump and a Republican Congress now and how's that a good thing for Progressive Policies. Republicans win cuz they are much more ruthless and they recognize that at a certain point they have to be united. Dems have factions that push for purity even if it detrimental to their ultimate goals.

So IMO F all the Progressives that piss on Obama or Hillary for PURITY's sake. F THEM ALL. All you really did was screw the country! The smart move would be to at least make sure that the Dems were in charge and then hold them accountable to passing legislation with progressive ideals. We're so busy fighting ourselves that we allowed the Republicans to swoop in and TRASH the small gains we did have. How the F is that good for anyone?

I appreciate your passion, but you are classifying me into something I am not. I am definitely not a purist. I would say I am a socialist but I am not a dogmatic ideologue.

Now you are throwing progressives under the bus, ok. But then you are asking us to hold the centrists accountable for passing progressive policies. How are we supposed to hold them accountable? As citizens our way to keep our politicians honest is by not voting for them, that's how it supposed to work. Yet you are asking us to hold them accountable and killing is for doing so at the same time.

Outside of running for office myself, the only way I can hold politicians accountable is by not voting for them. I didn't vote for Trump, I did my best to get Democrats elected to Senate and House seats, but I refused to vote for HRC. and if it happened again today after 8 months of Trump, I would do the exact same thing.

Now to policy-

The three imbeciles act whatever it's called Gram-Leahy-Bliley (or whatever) was not passed with a veto proof majority at first. Clinton could have lobbied hard against it, instead he CHOSE to support it and defend it and Democrats removed their objections after concessions were made. Even then in 1999 John Dingle from MI said this would make banks TBTF and lead to a crisis. The rest is history.

Glass -Stegall was already weakened when Clinton took office. But that doesn't mean I excuse him for finalizing it's demise. The act of doing so may have been somewhat symbolic, but his SUPPORT OF DEREGULATION was real. Fukk Clinton and people who defend him for doing that.

Opposing views

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/19/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-glass-steagall-had-nothing-do-financi/

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/08/27/repeal-of-glass-steagall-caused-the-financial-crisis

Deregulation and not any single law caused the financial crisis. This isn't up for debate and it's not a purist POV.

NAFTA was a different case. It was passed with veto proof majority, but it was also very publicly and vocally supported by the Clintons. Still is. Free markets and free trade are bedrock right wing concepts, Clinton took it up and made it real when Bush 1 couldn't. Again I blamed Clinton for his hypocrisy, I am not necessarily a protectionist, but NAFTA has done serious damage to wages (and by extension the middle class) in this country. When he signed NAFTA he said "more jobs" - I think he meant more jobs for Mexicans.

Dodd-Frank was toothless and draconian. I don't look down on it, I also don't think it was anything to write home about. Deregulation, derivatives and TBTF are alive and well.

I have NEVER criticized the ACA

I did point out that Obama didn't make the economy better, and I think it's true. Obama WAS hamstring by the Senate for six years, but he also CHOSE to keep Bush appointees like Paulson AND Bernanke and give them the power to engineer a zero accountability framework for the banks. As a result the banks are still doing what they were doing then and NOTHING was done to stop it. NOTHING.

When I vote for Democrats I expect them to fight vested corporate interests and move the needle back to the left. When they basically keel over or just join the corporatocracy, I get upset with them. You can hate me all you want, ain't gonna change nothing.

GustavBahler wrote:

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

nixluva wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:The point man on all the deregulation during the Clinton years was his own Secretary of the Treasury, who he appointed. No pass.

Sorry, Obama had 8 years. There were countless fines issued in that time, with no jail time or admission of guilt in many cases. One big reason there was such a huge blowout of the Dems in the midterms is because no one was held accountable for the crash. Wall Street got bailed out, and Main Street got the shaft. People saw that.

Obama hired some of the same people who caused the crash to run a Wall Street friendly administration, instead of hiring reformers. Americans saw that, they knew it was more of the same. Thats one of the reasons we see these facists marching in the street.

Its an old story. After a period of great economic upheaval, people like Trump move in, and try to exploit the anger. Democrats have to offer a real alternative, real policies, to counter all the craziness. They have been sitting on their hands too long.

Thats one thing that many Dems seem to agree on, as well as independents.

Dude let's stop the BS. NOTHING had a greater negative impact than the Great Recession and Stock Market Crash. All those lost jobs and lost wealth was the issue and not a lack of Wall Street Prosecutions.

I think you're grossly overstating the impact of a lack of Wall Street Prosecutions as the reasons for the Republicans taking over the House. What would that have done to stop foreclosures, increase wages or create more jobs? The MASSIVE loss of wealth was the real issue. There simply wasn't enough time to repair all that damage and the Voters took it out on the Dems which was STUPID because the Republicans almost to a man represent Big Business to such a degree that it's impossible for them to enact legislation that benefits Workers, the Poor, Minorities or the Elderly.

You're sighting one sliver of the much bigger problem. Wall Street Bankers going to jail doesn't fix the entire Economy even if they deserved it. The SYSTEM would still be in place with new faces in charge. It wouldn't have stopped the Massive profits and gains of Wall Street.

Lots of sophistry here. The damage from foreclosures had already been done, in part due to the massive deregulation, the unwillingness by the Clinton administration to regulate derivatives.

No, prosecutions wouldnt have stopped something that has already happened, clearly not arguing that. Prosecutions were to deter executives, and firms from engaging in risky, if not criminal behavior in the future.

You tell a person or a firm that you have get out of jail free card for the right price, that the price will pale to the overall profits. Of course people will keep doing what they are doing and just pay the fine. Not sure why this is so controversial. 8 years to build cases.

So here we are today, with the banks bigger than ever, the conditions that caused the crash still in place.

Obama's foreclosure relief plan was really a backdoor way to help the banks, the people his plan was supposed to protect Americans from. There was also not enough pushback on all the robosigning going on.

Millions of people were affected by these decisions, and you really believe they couldn't see what was going on in their own backyard?

I'm telling you that those who voted in the Republicans worked against their own best interests. In Fact Obama could've accomplished more the help those very same voters if NOT for the Republicans working against him from day one all the way thru his Presidency. A few Jailed Bankers would NOT have done anything but make a few people feel good but the nature of the system doesn't change because of that.

You also are leaving out Dodd-Frank and the Republican Efforts to weaken and slow down it's implementation.

1. The Volcker Rule

WHAT: The Volcker Rule intends to prevent commercial banks from engaging in speculative activities and proprietary trading for profit. In particular, it limits banks’ investments in hedge funds and private equity funds.

WHY: Commercial banks’ proprietary trading activities played a major role in the 2008 crisis. As a result, the banks experienced losses that placed depositors’ funds—and in turn, taxpayers’ dollars—at risk. By enacting the Volcker Rule, the government aims to regulate this kind of activity to keep depositors’ money safe.

WHO: The rule is named after former Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volcker, who is an elder statesman of financial matters and encouraged President Obama to include such a measure as part of financial reform.

WHEN: Regulators finalized the Volcker Rule in April 2014. Banks were required to comply by July 2015.

2. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

WHAT: The CFPB was created as an independent financial regulator to oversee consumer finance markets, including mortgages, student loans, and credit cards. The CFPB can write new rules, supervise certain financial companies, and enforce consumer protection laws through fines and other measures. (For example, the CFPB has already required major credit card issuers to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to consumers for deceptive credit card practices.)

WHY: Prior to the CFPB’s creation, there was no single authority whose primary responsibility was preventing consumer abuse or predatory practices in financial markets. The CFPB also aims to inform and educate consumers on financial matters, empowering them to take control of their own finances and understand their money’s trajectories.

WHO: The agency is Senator Elizabeth Warren’s brainchild, but President Obama did not believe she could be confirmed by the Senate to lead it. Instead of Senator Warren, Richard Cordray, the former Attorney General of Ohio, is the CFPB’s first and current director.

WHEN: The CFPB launched on July 11, 2011.

3. Capital and liquidity requirements

WHAT: The Federal Reserve set new standards for the amount and type of capital that banks and other depository institutions must have to protect against their exposures. The largest institutions, including Citibank, Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs, will be required to hold up to 9.5 percent of their assets in liquid capital (such as cash, government bonds, or other assets that are deemed to have a very low risk profile). However, some critics say this capital cushion is still far too low for the largest financial institutions.

WHY: Before the financial crisis, some large financial institutions had leverage ratios of roughly 50 to 1—in other words, they only had $1 in capital to protect against every $50 in liabilities. When the value of mortgage-related assets began to decline, firms’ balance sheets were quickly wiped out and the Federal Reserve was forced to step in to recapitalize them (with the exception of the failure of Lehman Brothers), or else allow further chaos in the financial system and broader economy. The new requirements will help ensure that banks can stay afloat significantly longer in case this happens again, without the drastic government bailouts necessary last time.

WHEN: A number of rules are going into effect on a rolling basis according to international standards. The largest financial institutions are required to meet the new capital standards by 2019, which means they will have leverage ratios nearer to 10 to 1—far more sustainable than before the financial crisis.

4. The Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) and designations

WHAT: The FSOC is an interagency group composed of heads and deputies of the Treasury Department and independent financial regulators to identify and monitor risks to the financial system. Its most important initial responsibility is designating systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs)—in other words, large, financially interconnected non-banks like AIG—for enhanced capital standards and regulation by the Federal Reserve.

WHY: The 2008 financial crisis proved that unsupervised non-banks were deeply engaged in financial activities that could put the broader financial system at risk. The most infamous non-bank bailout was the multinational insurance firm AIG, which required an $180 billion rescue from the federal government after it sold massive amounts of insurance without hedging its investments, as well as sold credit default swaps without adequate collateral or capital reserves.

WHEN: The first SIFI designations occurred in the summer of 2013 and included AIG, GE Capital, and Prudential Financial. Since then, the FSOC has also designated MetLife for enhanced supervision.

5. Derivatives regulations

WHAT: The Dodd-Frank Act gave the Securities Exchange Commission and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission authority to regulate “over-the-counter” derivatives trading. (“Over-the-counter” refers to a type of financial trade that is negotiated and carried out by private parties, rather than on a formal exchange, such as the New York Stock Exchange.) The Dodd-Frank Act also mandated that firms buying and selling derivatives need to use clearinghouses to do so. Clearinghouses are intended to reduce overall risk in the market by requiring collateral deposits and monitoring the credit-worthiness of firms engaged in derivatives trades. Clearinghouses are strongly capitalized in order to pay out losses if a firm defaults on its obligations.

WHY: When large numbers of homeowners defaulted on their mortgages in 2008, institutions with exposure to large amounts of certain types of derivatives linked to mortgages were wiped out, requiring cash infusions from the Federal Reserve to prevent outright collapse. These types of unregulated derivatives allowed too much risk to become distributed opaquely throughout the financial system and helped obscure the fact that system-wide capital reserves failed to match it.

WHEN: Ongoing. Roughly three-quarters of the 87 new derivatives rules required in the Dodd-Frank Act have been finalized.
6. Too Big to Fail and Living Wills

WHAT: The Dodd-Frank Act gave the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation “orderly liquidation authority”—in other words, the ability to wind down a large, failing financial institution as an alternative to bankruptcy. Large banks are also required to create “living wills,” or detailed plans that explain how they would manage their own failure without contaminating the broader financial system.

WHY: These measures are aimed at preventing market chaos and ensuring the government won’t need to provide another costly bailout in the event that a large financial institution fails. If banks are ultimately unable to submit acceptable plans, they could be required to break into smaller institutions.

WHEN: Ongoing. Regulators are currently considering whether the largest banks’ living wills are credible plans; in 2014, they sent the banks back to the drawing board after earlier versions were all rejected as inadequate.

https://fin.plaid.com/articles/major-provisions-of-the-wall-street-reform-and-consumer

All that was fine but it didnt go far enough to prevent all the over-leveraging that is still going on. Stock buybacks are still legal as well. They used to be illegal because its like steroids, an artificial boost to the company's stock value, and benefits mostly top executives and wealthy shareholders. Companies are putting their firms deep in debt to buy back stock, and gobble up other companies. Resulting in less competition as well.

You do realize that you are arguing that jailing people who have robbed tens of millions of Americans of their life savings, of literally hundreds of billions of dollars, would serve no purpose?

I really hate to break it to you Nix, but that is at the core of conservative thought these days. The only reason you seem to be agreeing with this worldview is that it was promoted by a democratic president.

If laws wont stop people from breaking them, why have any laws in the first place? So I guess the only people who should face justice for their crimes are the poor.

Nix meltdown in 5,4,3,2,1......

Don't let the Perfect be the enemy of the Good!!!

When I present you with facts that more was done than you're trying to present you seek to minimize it. Let's be clear there was NOTHING before Dodd-Frank and now there is something and it can always be argued that more is needed. This is the same kind of thinking that tries to diminish the ACA because it's not perfect and of course more could be done. IN A VACUUM yes, but that's not reality. You speak of these things as if they're EASY and there would be no pushback or consequences. You speak as if you have it all figured out and i'm saying things were NOT as EASY or clear cut as you represent.

I'm not arguing that no one deserved to be prosecuted. I'm saying that you're wrong if you think that would've had more of an impact on the daily lives of the poor and middle class. It would've done NOTHING to repair the damage that had been done.
It wouldn't have done as much as Dodd-Frank to at least address the cause and possible damages of a repeat of the Financial Crash. See you're only talking about punishment and prosecution and i'm talking about real remedies to the problems that could actually be accomplished with republican resistance.

A LOT more good was done than you are giving credit to Obama and the Dems. They could've accomplished so much more if not for the Republicans many detrimental actions which caused a loss of Billions and kept Millions from having Health Care. You need to remember that kind of thinking is how we ended up with TRUMP!!! Progressives and Independents thinking a vote of conscience or a protest vote or not voting at all was the answer. "I'll show Hillary and those wall street Dems" FOH!

Dodd-Frank did very little if anything. Clinton had the ability to veto the repeal of Glass Stegall and didn't. Your argument that he was in a tough spot is preposterous. You get elected president to deal with tough situation and still do the right thing. You talk about holding voters to higher standards - fantastic. Those voters are still waiting for you to hold the Clintons and Obamas to a higher standard as well.

I am NOT saying that one act would have stopped the tide but he basically allowed it to gather momentum. The core of our issues with the economy really goes back to the erosion of the production based economy and the advent of derivatives. The other piece of Clinton legislation that played into this was NAFTA. You can argue each in a vacuum but those two things took out whatever chances the middle class had at surviving. My opinion.

Obama didn't make the economy better, yes there are less people without jobs, but those jobs are not the same. This is the hard truth about using binary measures like- Do you have a job? Yes it No. It completely ignores the fact that one regular blue collar middle class job on the old economy was more valuable than 5-10 of the jobs at minimum wage today if you factor in inflation.

Bill Clinton moved to the Right because Dems had only had the Presidency 4 out of 20 years!!! We can hate on him for his moving to the right but context does matter!

Presidents are not KINGS and as such it is in FACT possible for a President to be in a tough spot. In fact Congress can pass Veto Proof Legislation and render the President impotent.

Congress can override the veto via a two-thirds vote with both houses voting separately, after which the bill becomes law. ... The president cannot veto a bill due to inaction; once the bill has been received by the president, the chief executive has thirty days to veto the bill.

I'm so tired of this BS that Progressive PURISTS keep pushing as if there's no resistance to Progressive Ideas when in fact there is GREAT resistance to these things. So if an ACA or Dodd-Frank does manage to get passed even tho flawed it's not something to look down on. IT'S F'N PROGRESS. PURISTS are part of the reason we have Trump and a Republican Congress now and how's that a good thing for Progressive Policies. Republicans win cuz they are much more ruthless and they recognize that at a certain point they have to be united. Dems have factions that push for purity even if it detrimental to their ultimate goals.

So IMO F all the Progressives that piss on Obama or Hillary for PURITY's sake. F THEM ALL. All you really did was screw the country! The smart move would be to at least make sure that the Dems were in charge and then hold them accountable to passing legislation with progressive ideals. We're so busy fighting ourselves that we allowed the Republicans to swoop in and TRASH the small gains we did have. How the F is that good for anyone?

I cant blame you seeing how progressives exploded income inequality. Turned the economy over to the financial services industry. Made 1984 look like disneyland. Were responsible for the largest gap between rich and poor in more than a millienia

Lets not forget forget the crime bill that put more African Americans in prison than in Stalin's gulags. Not to mention how they took money and looked the other way while wages stayed flat for the better part of 40 years. Yes lets blame a minority in this country who sounded the alarm to this casino culture for years. Never mind those who were perrenial apologists for some of the most craven behavior one could imagine. It was the progressives who turned the Democratic party into a club for the very rich, and those who would bend over and take it up the ass for them.

Reasonable Progressives voted for Hillary! Flaws and all it was the right move rather than Protest Votes, No Votes or worse yet Voting for Trump. All the Purist Progressives can enjoy their Pyrrhic Victory over Hillary as we watch Trump and the Republicans burn down everything. My point isn't that Hillary represented the BEST possible vehicle for Progressive Change but I know for DAMNED sure she'd be better than Trump and a Republican Congress determined to destroy all of the things Progressives believe in. So to me it's just STUPID to have allowed Trump to win given what he and the Republicans stand for. If you're a Progressive and can't see the difference between Hillary and Trump and the Republicans then God Help you.

I believe I have presented more than enough evidence to show that it is reasonable not to vote for Hillary Clinton. If the things I have mentioned dont make you even think twice, then you are part of the problem.

All these fascists you see marching, making trouble would still be making trouble because Donald Trump would be out there egging them on. You really think he would go quietly?

What you don't seem to realize is that there hasn't been a functioning left in this country in 40 years. 40 years or more since they had any tangible influence. Not today's liberals. So when I hear accusations of "purity", That slur has been used to keep the left quiet for decades. Conservative democrats have to own this. You set policy, you dominated the party agenda for decades. Dont blame progressives for the course you set.

NO IT WAS STUPID to not vote for Hillary given the fact that all that did was make Trump possible. Don't try and make yourself feel better by spouting this PURIST BS. As flawed as Hillary is she most certainly would be of more benefit to Progressive Policies than having Trump and FULL Republican Control.

I simply can't understand your position given what we've already witnessed under Trump. Trump and the Republicans have been stripping Progressive Gains day after day and you sit on your high horse talking about Conservative Dems as if they are the same as Trump and the Republicans!!! As I said enjoy your Pyrrhic Victory!!!

smackeddog wrote:Bannon is out!

Yeah!!

When he said drain the swamp, what he meant was he would continuously create the swamp and drain his own creation.

When he promised more jobs for Americans what he meant was each position in his administration is going to be a revolving door and between given the multitude of government posts all adult Americans will be employed for at least one week in some capacity by his administration.

I am starting to see a pattern develop

gunsnewing wrote:No outrage here over Barcelona? Figures

Start a Barcelona thread. This is not Fox vs. CNN. Its about Trump.
Wrong subject for that "Pivot".

GustavBahler wrote:

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

nixluva wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:The point man on all the deregulation during the Clinton years was his own Secretary of the Treasury, who he appointed. No pass.

Sorry, Obama had 8 years. There were countless fines issued in that time, with no jail time or admission of guilt in many cases. One big reason there was such a huge blowout of the Dems in the midterms is because no one was held accountable for the crash. Wall Street got bailed out, and Main Street got the shaft. People saw that.

Obama hired some of the same people who caused the crash to run a Wall Street friendly administration, instead of hiring reformers. Americans saw that, they knew it was more of the same. Thats one of the reasons we see these facists marching in the street.

Its an old story. After a period of great economic upheaval, people like Trump move in, and try to exploit the anger. Democrats have to offer a real alternative, real policies, to counter all the craziness. They have been sitting on their hands too long.

Thats one thing that many Dems seem to agree on, as well as independents.

Dude let's stop the BS. NOTHING had a greater negative impact than the Great Recession and Stock Market Crash. All those lost jobs and lost wealth was the issue and not a lack of Wall Street Prosecutions.

I think you're grossly overstating the impact of a lack of Wall Street Prosecutions as the reasons for the Republicans taking over the House. What would that have done to stop foreclosures, increase wages or create more jobs? The MASSIVE loss of wealth was the real issue. There simply wasn't enough time to repair all that damage and the Voters took it out on the Dems which was STUPID because the Republicans almost to a man represent Big Business to such a degree that it's impossible for them to enact legislation that benefits Workers, the Poor, Minorities or the Elderly.

You're sighting one sliver of the much bigger problem. Wall Street Bankers going to jail doesn't fix the entire Economy even if they deserved it. The SYSTEM would still be in place with new faces in charge. It wouldn't have stopped the Massive profits and gains of Wall Street.

Lots of sophistry here. The damage from foreclosures had already been done, in part due to the massive deregulation, the unwillingness by the Clinton administration to regulate derivatives.

No, prosecutions wouldnt have stopped something that has already happened, clearly not arguing that. Prosecutions were to deter executives, and firms from engaging in risky, if not criminal behavior in the future.

You tell a person or a firm that you have get out of jail free card for the right price, that the price will pale to the overall profits. Of course people will keep doing what they are doing and just pay the fine. Not sure why this is so controversial. 8 years to build cases.

So here we are today, with the banks bigger than ever, the conditions that caused the crash still in place.

Obama's foreclosure relief plan was really a backdoor way to help the banks, the people his plan was supposed to protect Americans from. There was also not enough pushback on all the robosigning going on.

Millions of people were affected by these decisions, and you really believe they couldn't see what was going on in their own backyard?

I'm telling you that those who voted in the Republicans worked against their own best interests. In Fact Obama could've accomplished more the help those very same voters if NOT for the Republicans working against him from day one all the way thru his Presidency. A few Jailed Bankers would NOT have done anything but make a few people feel good but the nature of the system doesn't change because of that.

You also are leaving out Dodd-Frank and the Republican Efforts to weaken and slow down it's implementation.

1. The Volcker Rule

WHAT: The Volcker Rule intends to prevent commercial banks from engaging in speculative activities and proprietary trading for profit. In particular, it limits banks’ investments in hedge funds and private equity funds.

WHY: Commercial banks’ proprietary trading activities played a major role in the 2008 crisis. As a result, the banks experienced losses that placed depositors’ funds—and in turn, taxpayers’ dollars—at risk. By enacting the Volcker Rule, the government aims to regulate this kind of activity to keep depositors’ money safe.

WHO: The rule is named after former Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volcker, who is an elder statesman of financial matters and encouraged President Obama to include such a measure as part of financial reform.

WHEN: Regulators finalized the Volcker Rule in April 2014. Banks were required to comply by July 2015.

2. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

WHAT: The CFPB was created as an independent financial regulator to oversee consumer finance markets, including mortgages, student loans, and credit cards. The CFPB can write new rules, supervise certain financial companies, and enforce consumer protection laws through fines and other measures. (For example, the CFPB has already required major credit card issuers to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to consumers for deceptive credit card practices.)

WHY: Prior to the CFPB’s creation, there was no single authority whose primary responsibility was preventing consumer abuse or predatory practices in financial markets. The CFPB also aims to inform and educate consumers on financial matters, empowering them to take control of their own finances and understand their money’s trajectories.

WHO: The agency is Senator Elizabeth Warren’s brainchild, but President Obama did not believe she could be confirmed by the Senate to lead it. Instead of Senator Warren, Richard Cordray, the former Attorney General of Ohio, is the CFPB’s first and current director.

WHEN: The CFPB launched on July 11, 2011.

3. Capital and liquidity requirements

WHAT: The Federal Reserve set new standards for the amount and type of capital that banks and other depository institutions must have to protect against their exposures. The largest institutions, including Citibank, Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs, will be required to hold up to 9.5 percent of their assets in liquid capital (such as cash, government bonds, or other assets that are deemed to have a very low risk profile). However, some critics say this capital cushion is still far too low for the largest financial institutions.

WHY: Before the financial crisis, some large financial institutions had leverage ratios of roughly 50 to 1—in other words, they only had $1 in capital to protect against every $50 in liabilities. When the value of mortgage-related assets began to decline, firms’ balance sheets were quickly wiped out and the Federal Reserve was forced to step in to recapitalize them (with the exception of the failure of Lehman Brothers), or else allow further chaos in the financial system and broader economy. The new requirements will help ensure that banks can stay afloat significantly longer in case this happens again, without the drastic government bailouts necessary last time.

WHEN: A number of rules are going into effect on a rolling basis according to international standards. The largest financial institutions are required to meet the new capital standards by 2019, which means they will have leverage ratios nearer to 10 to 1—far more sustainable than before the financial crisis.

4. The Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) and designations

WHAT: The FSOC is an interagency group composed of heads and deputies of the Treasury Department and independent financial regulators to identify and monitor risks to the financial system. Its most important initial responsibility is designating systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs)—in other words, large, financially interconnected non-banks like AIG—for enhanced capital standards and regulation by the Federal Reserve.

WHY: The 2008 financial crisis proved that unsupervised non-banks were deeply engaged in financial activities that could put the broader financial system at risk. The most infamous non-bank bailout was the multinational insurance firm AIG, which required an $180 billion rescue from the federal government after it sold massive amounts of insurance without hedging its investments, as well as sold credit default swaps without adequate collateral or capital reserves.

WHEN: The first SIFI designations occurred in the summer of 2013 and included AIG, GE Capital, and Prudential Financial. Since then, the FSOC has also designated MetLife for enhanced supervision.

5. Derivatives regulations

WHAT: The Dodd-Frank Act gave the Securities Exchange Commission and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission authority to regulate “over-the-counter” derivatives trading. (“Over-the-counter” refers to a type of financial trade that is negotiated and carried out by private parties, rather than on a formal exchange, such as the New York Stock Exchange.) The Dodd-Frank Act also mandated that firms buying and selling derivatives need to use clearinghouses to do so. Clearinghouses are intended to reduce overall risk in the market by requiring collateral deposits and monitoring the credit-worthiness of firms engaged in derivatives trades. Clearinghouses are strongly capitalized in order to pay out losses if a firm defaults on its obligations.

WHY: When large numbers of homeowners defaulted on their mortgages in 2008, institutions with exposure to large amounts of certain types of derivatives linked to mortgages were wiped out, requiring cash infusions from the Federal Reserve to prevent outright collapse. These types of unregulated derivatives allowed too much risk to become distributed opaquely throughout the financial system and helped obscure the fact that system-wide capital reserves failed to match it.

WHEN: Ongoing. Roughly three-quarters of the 87 new derivatives rules required in the Dodd-Frank Act have been finalized.
6. Too Big to Fail and Living Wills

WHAT: The Dodd-Frank Act gave the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation “orderly liquidation authority”—in other words, the ability to wind down a large, failing financial institution as an alternative to bankruptcy. Large banks are also required to create “living wills,” or detailed plans that explain how they would manage their own failure without contaminating the broader financial system.

WHY: These measures are aimed at preventing market chaos and ensuring the government won’t need to provide another costly bailout in the event that a large financial institution fails. If banks are ultimately unable to submit acceptable plans, they could be required to break into smaller institutions.

WHEN: Ongoing. Regulators are currently considering whether the largest banks’ living wills are credible plans; in 2014, they sent the banks back to the drawing board after earlier versions were all rejected as inadequate.

https://fin.plaid.com/articles/major-provisions-of-the-wall-street-reform-and-consumer

All that was fine but it didnt go far enough to prevent all the over-leveraging that is still going on. Stock buybacks are still legal as well. They used to be illegal because its like steroids, an artificial boost to the company's stock value, and benefits mostly top executives and wealthy shareholders. Companies are putting their firms deep in debt to buy back stock, and gobble up other companies. Resulting in less competition as well.

You do realize that you are arguing that jailing people who have robbed tens of millions of Americans of their life savings, of literally hundreds of billions of dollars, would serve no purpose?

I really hate to break it to you Nix, but that is at the core of conservative thought these days. The only reason you seem to be agreeing with this worldview is that it was promoted by a democratic president.

If laws wont stop people from breaking them, why have any laws in the first place? So I guess the only people who should face justice for their crimes are the poor.

Nix meltdown in 5,4,3,2,1......

Don't let the Perfect be the enemy of the Good!!!

When I present you with facts that more was done than you're trying to present you seek to minimize it. Let's be clear there was NOTHING before Dodd-Frank and now there is something and it can always be argued that more is needed. This is the same kind of thinking that tries to diminish the ACA because it's not perfect and of course more could be done. IN A VACUUM yes, but that's not reality. You speak of these things as if they're EASY and there would be no pushback or consequences. You speak as if you have it all figured out and i'm saying things were NOT as EASY or clear cut as you represent.

I'm not arguing that no one deserved to be prosecuted. I'm saying that you're wrong if you think that would've had more of an impact on the daily lives of the poor and middle class. It would've done NOTHING to repair the damage that had been done.
It wouldn't have done as much as Dodd-Frank to at least address the cause and possible damages of a repeat of the Financial Crash. See you're only talking about punishment and prosecution and i'm talking about real remedies to the problems that could actually be accomplished with republican resistance.

A LOT more good was done than you are giving credit to Obama and the Dems. They could've accomplished so much more if not for the Republicans many detrimental actions which caused a loss of Billions and kept Millions from having Health Care. You need to remember that kind of thinking is how we ended up with TRUMP!!! Progressives and Independents thinking a vote of conscience or a protest vote or not voting at all was the answer. "I'll show Hillary and those wall street Dems" FOH!

Dodd-Frank did very little if anything. Clinton had the ability to veto the repeal of Glass Stegall and didn't. Your argument that he was in a tough spot is preposterous. You get elected president to deal with tough situation and still do the right thing. You talk about holding voters to higher standards - fantastic. Those voters are still waiting for you to hold the Clintons and Obamas to a higher standard as well.

I am NOT saying that one act would have stopped the tide but he basically allowed it to gather momentum. The core of our issues with the economy really goes back to the erosion of the production based economy and the advent of derivatives. The other piece of Clinton legislation that played into this was NAFTA. You can argue each in a vacuum but those two things took out whatever chances the middle class had at surviving. My opinion.

Obama didn't make the economy better, yes there are less people without jobs, but those jobs are not the same. This is the hard truth about using binary measures like- Do you have a job? Yes it No. It completely ignores the fact that one regular blue collar middle class job on the old economy was more valuable than 5-10 of the jobs at minimum wage today if you factor in inflation.

Bill Clinton moved to the Right because Dems had only had the Presidency 4 out of 20 years!!! We can hate on him for his moving to the right but context does matter!

Presidents are not KINGS and as such it is in FACT possible for a President to be in a tough spot. In fact Congress can pass Veto Proof Legislation and render the President impotent.

Congress can override the veto via a two-thirds vote with both houses voting separately, after which the bill becomes law. ... The president cannot veto a bill due to inaction; once the bill has been received by the president, the chief executive has thirty days to veto the bill.

I'm so tired of this BS that Progressive PURISTS keep pushing as if there's no resistance to Progressive Ideas when in fact there is GREAT resistance to these things. So if an ACA or Dodd-Frank does manage to get passed even tho flawed it's not something to look down on. IT'S F'N PROGRESS. PURISTS are part of the reason we have Trump and a Republican Congress now and how's that a good thing for Progressive Policies. Republicans win cuz they are much more ruthless and they recognize that at a certain point they have to be united. Dems have factions that push for purity even if it detrimental to their ultimate goals.

So IMO F all the Progressives that piss on Obama or Hillary for PURITY's sake. F THEM ALL. All you really did was screw the country! The smart move would be to at least make sure that the Dems were in charge and then hold them accountable to passing legislation with progressive ideals. We're so busy fighting ourselves that we allowed the Republicans to swoop in and TRASH the small gains we did have. How the F is that good for anyone?

I cant blame you seeing how progressives exploded income inequality. Turned the economy over to the financial services industry. Made 1984 look like disneyland. Were responsible for the largest gap between rich and poor in more than a millienia

Lets not forget forget the crime bill that put more African Americans in prison than in Stalin's gulags. Not to mention how they took money and looked the other way while wages stayed flat for the better part of 40 years. Yes lets blame a minority in this country who sounded the alarm to this casino culture for years. Never mind those who were perrenial apologists for some of the most craven behavior one could imagine. It was the progressives who turned the Democratic party into a club for the very rich, and those who would bend over and take it up the ass for them.

Reasonable Progressives voted for Hillary! Flaws and all it was the right move rather than Protest Votes, No Votes or worse yet Voting for Trump. All the Purist Progressives can enjoy their Pyrrhic Victory over Hillary as we watch Trump and the Republicans burn down everything. My point isn't that Hillary represented the BEST possible vehicle for Progressive Change but I know for DAMNED sure she'd be better than Trump and a Republican Congress determined to destroy all of the things Progressives believe in. So to me it's just STUPID to have allowed Trump to win given what he and the Republicans stand for. If you're a Progressive and can't see the difference between Hillary and Trump and the Republicans then God Help you.

I believe I have presented more than enough evidence to show that it is reasonable not to vote for Hillary Clinton. If the things I have mentioned dont make you even think twice, then you are part of the problem.

All these fascists you see marching, making trouble would still be making trouble because Donald Trump would be out there egging them on. You really think he would go quietly?

What you don't seem to realize is that there hasn't been a functioning left in this country in 40 years. 40 years or more since they had any tangible influence. Not today's liberals. So when I hear accusations of "purity", That slur has been used to keep the left quiet for decades. Conservative democrats have to own this. You set policy, you dominated the party agenda for decades. Dont blame progressives for the course you set.

NO IT WAS STUPID to not vote for Hillary given the fact that all that did was make Trump possible. Don't try and make yourself feel better by spouting this PURIST BS. As flawed as Hillary is she most certainly would be of more benefit to Progressive Policies than having Trump and FULL Republican Control.

I simply can't understand your position given what we've already witnessed under Trump. Trump and the Republicans have been stripping Progressive Gains day after day and you sit on your high horse talking about Conservative Dems as if they are the same as Trump and the Republicans!!! As I said enjoy your Pyrrhic Victory!!!

You are definitely are part of the problem. Who the **** kept wages flat for 40 years? Just the republican party? You that dense? You know who made it legal to permanently imprison or kill an American ANYWHERE without trial or charges? Your Dreamboat Barack Obama. You cant get any more radical than that.

You are a soulless apologist for empire, you have no business lecturing anyone on the evils of extremism. You rubber stamped the last 8 years of it.

You will defend anything, and I mean ANYTHING the democrats do, just because its the Democrats. You defended the democrats handing over the keys of the economy to Wall Street. How did that work out? The only thing you seem to want is a party whose purity is untouched by progressivism. Your're the purity freak.

You follow politics like you follow sports, nothing matters but the team (or the coach, or the team president). The sooner the likes of you are out of politics, the better off this country will be. We have lived through the last 40 years of seeing what trying be republican light accomplishes, amd you argue for more of the same. There will always be one more reason to vote for the lesser evil. Thats the scam.

Hillary Clinton was more than flawed, she was ****ing dangerous. She helped wreck the economy with her husband, turned our prison system in a gulag for people of color. Clinton then set about making some of the biggest foreign policy blunders in American history, while in office.

Flawed doesn't even begin to describe this woman. Give it up.

Think what you want about me, but when it comes to this subject I live in the REAL WORLD! You simply don't get it. I recognize all the things you're bringing up but I also realize that at a certain point you have to decide what's going to at least give you a fighting chance to achieve your goals. Going against Hillary only served to help Trump and that IS STUPID!!! Hillary and fewer Republicans in Congress was BETTER than having Trump and FULL Republican control. That is what i'm arguing.

All that you said and History will show that when the time came some decided it was more important to stand on some High Horse Principle than to continue progress and accept that PERFECT wasn't possible. No one is suggesting that Hillary was a great candidate but you have to at some point recognize what's in your best interests and accept that reality. BUT NO!!! You want to follow this PURIST BS and that kind of thinking is why we have Trump and a Republican Congress who stand in complete opposition to everything you claim to stand for. THAT'S STUPID!!!

Those who refused to accept that you actually did move Hillary to the LEFT and that you at least had the chance to pressure her to move even further if she was president were STUPID. WHY? Because you know that Trump and the Republicans are NEVER going to be anywhere close to your views or policies. See you don't have to LOVE or ACCEPT everything that Hillary stood for but at least you know you'd protect some of the gains and have a chance to keep pushing forward with more Progressive Policies. You simply can't do that with Trump and the Republicans.

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

nixluva wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:The point man on all the deregulation during the Clinton years was his own Secretary of the Treasury, who he appointed. No pass.

Sorry, Obama had 8 years. There were countless fines issued in that time, with no jail time or admission of guilt in many cases. One big reason there was such a huge blowout of the Dems in the midterms is because no one was held accountable for the crash. Wall Street got bailed out, and Main Street got the shaft. People saw that.

Obama hired some of the same people who caused the crash to run a Wall Street friendly administration, instead of hiring reformers. Americans saw that, they knew it was more of the same. Thats one of the reasons we see these facists marching in the street.

Its an old story. After a period of great economic upheaval, people like Trump move in, and try to exploit the anger. Democrats have to offer a real alternative, real policies, to counter all the craziness. They have been sitting on their hands too long.

Thats one thing that many Dems seem to agree on, as well as independents.

Dude let's stop the BS. NOTHING had a greater negative impact than the Great Recession and Stock Market Crash. All those lost jobs and lost wealth was the issue and not a lack of Wall Street Prosecutions.

I think you're grossly overstating the impact of a lack of Wall Street Prosecutions as the reasons for the Republicans taking over the House. What would that have done to stop foreclosures, increase wages or create more jobs? The MASSIVE loss of wealth was the real issue. There simply wasn't enough time to repair all that damage and the Voters took it out on the Dems which was STUPID because the Republicans almost to a man represent Big Business to such a degree that it's impossible for them to enact legislation that benefits Workers, the Poor, Minorities or the Elderly.

You're sighting one sliver of the much bigger problem. Wall Street Bankers going to jail doesn't fix the entire Economy even if they deserved it. The SYSTEM would still be in place with new faces in charge. It wouldn't have stopped the Massive profits and gains of Wall Street.

Lots of sophistry here. The damage from foreclosures had already been done, in part due to the massive deregulation, the unwillingness by the Clinton administration to regulate derivatives.

No, prosecutions wouldnt have stopped something that has already happened, clearly not arguing that. Prosecutions were to deter executives, and firms from engaging in risky, if not criminal behavior in the future.

You tell a person or a firm that you have get out of jail free card for the right price, that the price will pale to the overall profits. Of course people will keep doing what they are doing and just pay the fine. Not sure why this is so controversial. 8 years to build cases.

So here we are today, with the banks bigger than ever, the conditions that caused the crash still in place.

Obama's foreclosure relief plan was really a backdoor way to help the banks, the people his plan was supposed to protect Americans from. There was also not enough pushback on all the robosigning going on.

Millions of people were affected by these decisions, and you really believe they couldn't see what was going on in their own backyard?

I'm telling you that those who voted in the Republicans worked against their own best interests. In Fact Obama could've accomplished more the help those very same voters if NOT for the Republicans working against him from day one all the way thru his Presidency. A few Jailed Bankers would NOT have done anything but make a few people feel good but the nature of the system doesn't change because of that.

You also are leaving out Dodd-Frank and the Republican Efforts to weaken and slow down it's implementation.

1. The Volcker Rule

WHAT: The Volcker Rule intends to prevent commercial banks from engaging in speculative activities and proprietary trading for profit. In particular, it limits banks’ investments in hedge funds and private equity funds.

WHY: Commercial banks’ proprietary trading activities played a major role in the 2008 crisis. As a result, the banks experienced losses that placed depositors’ funds—and in turn, taxpayers’ dollars—at risk. By enacting the Volcker Rule, the government aims to regulate this kind of activity to keep depositors’ money safe.

WHO: The rule is named after former Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volcker, who is an elder statesman of financial matters and encouraged President Obama to include such a measure as part of financial reform.

WHEN: Regulators finalized the Volcker Rule in April 2014. Banks were required to comply by July 2015.

2. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

WHAT: The CFPB was created as an independent financial regulator to oversee consumer finance markets, including mortgages, student loans, and credit cards. The CFPB can write new rules, supervise certain financial companies, and enforce consumer protection laws through fines and other measures. (For example, the CFPB has already required major credit card issuers to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to consumers for deceptive credit card practices.)

WHY: Prior to the CFPB’s creation, there was no single authority whose primary responsibility was preventing consumer abuse or predatory practices in financial markets. The CFPB also aims to inform and educate consumers on financial matters, empowering them to take control of their own finances and understand their money’s trajectories.

WHO: The agency is Senator Elizabeth Warren’s brainchild, but President Obama did not believe she could be confirmed by the Senate to lead it. Instead of Senator Warren, Richard Cordray, the former Attorney General of Ohio, is the CFPB’s first and current director.

WHEN: The CFPB launched on July 11, 2011.

3. Capital and liquidity requirements

WHAT: The Federal Reserve set new standards for the amount and type of capital that banks and other depository institutions must have to protect against their exposures. The largest institutions, including Citibank, Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs, will be required to hold up to 9.5 percent of their assets in liquid capital (such as cash, government bonds, or other assets that are deemed to have a very low risk profile). However, some critics say this capital cushion is still far too low for the largest financial institutions.

WHY: Before the financial crisis, some large financial institutions had leverage ratios of roughly 50 to 1—in other words, they only had $1 in capital to protect against every $50 in liabilities. When the value of mortgage-related assets began to decline, firms’ balance sheets were quickly wiped out and the Federal Reserve was forced to step in to recapitalize them (with the exception of the failure of Lehman Brothers), or else allow further chaos in the financial system and broader economy. The new requirements will help ensure that banks can stay afloat significantly longer in case this happens again, without the drastic government bailouts necessary last time.

WHEN: A number of rules are going into effect on a rolling basis according to international standards. The largest financial institutions are required to meet the new capital standards by 2019, which means they will have leverage ratios nearer to 10 to 1—far more sustainable than before the financial crisis.

4. The Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) and designations

WHAT: The FSOC is an interagency group composed of heads and deputies of the Treasury Department and independent financial regulators to identify and monitor risks to the financial system. Its most important initial responsibility is designating systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs)—in other words, large, financially interconnected non-banks like AIG—for enhanced capital standards and regulation by the Federal Reserve.

WHY: The 2008 financial crisis proved that unsupervised non-banks were deeply engaged in financial activities that could put the broader financial system at risk. The most infamous non-bank bailout was the multinational insurance firm AIG, which required an $180 billion rescue from the federal government after it sold massive amounts of insurance without hedging its investments, as well as sold credit default swaps without adequate collateral or capital reserves.

WHEN: The first SIFI designations occurred in the summer of 2013 and included AIG, GE Capital, and Prudential Financial. Since then, the FSOC has also designated MetLife for enhanced supervision.

5. Derivatives regulations

WHAT: The Dodd-Frank Act gave the Securities Exchange Commission and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission authority to regulate “over-the-counter” derivatives trading. (“Over-the-counter” refers to a type of financial trade that is negotiated and carried out by private parties, rather than on a formal exchange, such as the New York Stock Exchange.) The Dodd-Frank Act also mandated that firms buying and selling derivatives need to use clearinghouses to do so. Clearinghouses are intended to reduce overall risk in the market by requiring collateral deposits and monitoring the credit-worthiness of firms engaged in derivatives trades. Clearinghouses are strongly capitalized in order to pay out losses if a firm defaults on its obligations.

WHY: When large numbers of homeowners defaulted on their mortgages in 2008, institutions with exposure to large amounts of certain types of derivatives linked to mortgages were wiped out, requiring cash infusions from the Federal Reserve to prevent outright collapse. These types of unregulated derivatives allowed too much risk to become distributed opaquely throughout the financial system and helped obscure the fact that system-wide capital reserves failed to match it.

WHEN: Ongoing. Roughly three-quarters of the 87 new derivatives rules required in the Dodd-Frank Act have been finalized.
6. Too Big to Fail and Living Wills

WHAT: The Dodd-Frank Act gave the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation “orderly liquidation authority”—in other words, the ability to wind down a large, failing financial institution as an alternative to bankruptcy. Large banks are also required to create “living wills,” or detailed plans that explain how they would manage their own failure without contaminating the broader financial system.

WHY: These measures are aimed at preventing market chaos and ensuring the government won’t need to provide another costly bailout in the event that a large financial institution fails. If banks are ultimately unable to submit acceptable plans, they could be required to break into smaller institutions.

WHEN: Ongoing. Regulators are currently considering whether the largest banks’ living wills are credible plans; in 2014, they sent the banks back to the drawing board after earlier versions were all rejected as inadequate.

https://fin.plaid.com/articles/major-provisions-of-the-wall-street-reform-and-consumer

All that was fine but it didnt go far enough to prevent all the over-leveraging that is still going on. Stock buybacks are still legal as well. They used to be illegal because its like steroids, an artificial boost to the company's stock value, and benefits mostly top executives and wealthy shareholders. Companies are putting their firms deep in debt to buy back stock, and gobble up other companies. Resulting in less competition as well.

You do realize that you are arguing that jailing people who have robbed tens of millions of Americans of their life savings, of literally hundreds of billions of dollars, would serve no purpose?

I really hate to break it to you Nix, but that is at the core of conservative thought these days. The only reason you seem to be agreeing with this worldview is that it was promoted by a democratic president.

If laws wont stop people from breaking them, why have any laws in the first place? So I guess the only people who should face justice for their crimes are the poor.

Nix meltdown in 5,4,3,2,1......

Don't let the Perfect be the enemy of the Good!!!

When I present you with facts that more was done than you're trying to present you seek to minimize it. Let's be clear there was NOTHING before Dodd-Frank and now there is something and it can always be argued that more is needed. This is the same kind of thinking that tries to diminish the ACA because it's not perfect and of course more could be done. IN A VACUUM yes, but that's not reality. You speak of these things as if they're EASY and there would be no pushback or consequences. You speak as if you have it all figured out and i'm saying things were NOT as EASY or clear cut as you represent.

I'm not arguing that no one deserved to be prosecuted. I'm saying that you're wrong if you think that would've had more of an impact on the daily lives of the poor and middle class. It would've done NOTHING to repair the damage that had been done.
It wouldn't have done as much as Dodd-Frank to at least address the cause and possible damages of a repeat of the Financial Crash. See you're only talking about punishment and prosecution and i'm talking about real remedies to the problems that could actually be accomplished with republican resistance.

A LOT more good was done than you are giving credit to Obama and the Dems. They could've accomplished so much more if not for the Republicans many detrimental actions which caused a loss of Billions and kept Millions from having Health Care. You need to remember that kind of thinking is how we ended up with TRUMP!!! Progressives and Independents thinking a vote of conscience or a protest vote or not voting at all was the answer. "I'll show Hillary and those wall street Dems" FOH!

Dodd-Frank did very little if anything. Clinton had the ability to veto the repeal of Glass Stegall and didn't. Your argument that he was in a tough spot is preposterous. You get elected president to deal with tough situation and still do the right thing. You talk about holding voters to higher standards - fantastic. Those voters are still waiting for you to hold the Clintons and Obamas to a higher standard as well.

I am NOT saying that one act would have stopped the tide but he basically allowed it to gather momentum. The core of our issues with the economy really goes back to the erosion of the production based economy and the advent of derivatives. The other piece of Clinton legislation that played into this was NAFTA. You can argue each in a vacuum but those two things took out whatever chances the middle class had at surviving. My opinion.

Obama didn't make the economy better, yes there are less people without jobs, but those jobs are not the same. This is the hard truth about using binary measures like- Do you have a job? Yes it No. It completely ignores the fact that one regular blue collar middle class job on the old economy was more valuable than 5-10 of the jobs at minimum wage today if you factor in inflation.

Bill Clinton moved to the Right because Dems had only had the Presidency 4 out of 20 years!!! We can hate on him for his moving to the right but context does matter!

Presidents are not KINGS and as such it is in FACT possible for a President to be in a tough spot. In fact Congress can pass Veto Proof Legislation and render the President impotent.

Congress can override the veto via a two-thirds vote with both houses voting separately, after which the bill becomes law. ... The president cannot veto a bill due to inaction; once the bill has been received by the president, the chief executive has thirty days to veto the bill.

I'm so tired of this BS that Progressive PURISTS keep pushing as if there's no resistance to Progressive Ideas when in fact there is GREAT resistance to these things. So if an ACA or Dodd-Frank does manage to get passed even tho flawed it's not something to look down on. IT'S F'N PROGRESS. PURISTS are part of the reason we have Trump and a Republican Congress now and how's that a good thing for Progressive Policies. Republicans win cuz they are much more ruthless and they recognize that at a certain point they have to be united. Dems have factions that push for purity even if it detrimental to their ultimate goals.

So IMO F all the Progressives that piss on Obama or Hillary for PURITY's sake. F THEM ALL. All you really did was screw the country! The smart move would be to at least make sure that the Dems were in charge and then hold them accountable to passing legislation with progressive ideals. We're so busy fighting ourselves that we allowed the Republicans to swoop in and TRASH the small gains we did have. How the F is that good for anyone?

I cant blame you seeing how progressives exploded income inequality. Turned the economy over to the financial services industry. Made 1984 look like disneyland. Were responsible for the largest gap between rich and poor in more than a millienia

Lets not forget forget the crime bill that put more African Americans in prison than in Stalin's gulags. Not to mention how they took money and looked the other way while wages stayed flat for the better part of 40 years. Yes lets blame a minority in this country who sounded the alarm to this casino culture for years. Never mind those who were perrenial apologists for some of the most craven behavior one could imagine. It was the progressives who turned the Democratic party into a club for the very rich, and those who would bend over and take it up the ass for them.

Reasonable Progressives voted for Hillary! Flaws and all it was the right move rather than Protest Votes, No Votes or worse yet Voting for Trump. All the Purist Progressives can enjoy their Pyrrhic Victory over Hillary as we watch Trump and the Republicans burn down everything. My point isn't that Hillary represented the BEST possible vehicle for Progressive Change but I know for DAMNED sure she'd be better than Trump and a Republican Congress determined to destroy all of the things Progressives believe in. So to me it's just STUPID to have allowed Trump to win given what he and the Republicans stand for. If you're a Progressive and can't see the difference between Hillary and Trump and the Republicans then God Help you.

I believe I have presented more than enough evidence to show that it is reasonable not to vote for Hillary Clinton. If the things I have mentioned dont make you even think twice, then you are part of the problem.

All these fascists you see marching, making trouble would still be making trouble because Donald Trump would be out there egging them on. You really think he would go quietly?

What you don't seem to realize is that there hasn't been a functioning left in this country in 40 years. 40 years or more since they had any tangible influence. Not today's liberals. So when I hear accusations of "purity", That slur has been used to keep the left quiet for decades. Conservative democrats have to own this. You set policy, you dominated the party agenda for decades. Dont blame progressives for the course you set.

NO IT WAS STUPID to not vote for Hillary given the fact that all that did was make Trump possible. Don't try and make yourself feel better by spouting this PURIST BS. As flawed as Hillary is she most certainly would be of more benefit to Progressive Policies than having Trump and FULL Republican Control.

I simply can't understand your position given what we've already witnessed under Trump. Trump and the Republicans have been stripping Progressive Gains day after day and you sit on your high horse talking about Conservative Dems as if they are the same as Trump and the Republicans!!! As I said enjoy your Pyrrhic Victory!!!

You are definitely are part of the problem. Who the **** kept wages flat for 40 years? Just the republican party? You that dense? You know who made it legal to permanently imprison or kill an American ANYWHERE without trial or charges? Your Dreamboat Barack Obama. You cant get any more radical than that.

You are a soulless apologist for empire, you have no business lecturing anyone on the evils of extremism. You rubber stamped the last 8 years of it.

You will defend anything, and I mean ANYTHING the democrats do, just because its the Democrats. You defended the democrats handing over the keys of the economy to Wall Street. How did that work out? The only thing you seem to want is a party whose purity is untouched by progressivism. Your're the purity freak.

You follow politics like you follow sports, nothing matters but the team (or the coach, or the team president). The sooner the likes of you are out of politics, the better off this country will be. We have lived through the last 40 years of seeing what trying be republican light accomplishes, amd you argue for more of the same. There will always be one more reason to vote for the lesser evil. Thats the scam.

Hillary Clinton was more than flawed, she was ****ing dangerous. She helped wreck the economy with her husband, turned our prison system in a gulag for people of color. Clinton then set about making some of the biggest foreign policy blunders in American history, while in office.

Flawed doesn't even begin to describe this woman. Give it up.

Think what you want about me, but when it comes to this subject I live in the REAL WORLD! You simply don't get it. I recognize all the things you're bringing up but I also realize that at a certain point you have to decide what's going to at least give you a fighting chance to achieve your goals. Going against Hillary only served to help Trump and that IS STUPID!!! Hillary and fewer Republicans in Congress was BETTER than having Trump and FULL Republican control. That is what i'm arguing.

All that you said and History will show that when the time came some decided it was more important to stand on some High Horse Principle than to continue progress and accept that PERFECT wasn't possible. No one is suggesting that Hillary was a great candidate but you have to at some point recognize what's in your best interests and accept that reality. BUT NO!!! You want to follow this PURIST BS and that kind of thinking is why we have Trump and a Republican Congress who stand in complete opposition to everything you claim to stand for. THAT'S STUPID!!!

Those who refused to accept that you actually did move Hillary to the LEFT and that you at least had the chance to pressure her to move even further if she was president were STUPID. WHY? Because you know that Trump and the Republicans are NEVER going to be anywhere close to your views or policies. See you don't have to LOVE or ACCEPT everything that Hillary stood for but at least you know you'd protect some of the gains and have a chance to keep pushing forward with more Progressive Policies. You simply can't do that with Trump and the Republicans.

You are arguing about which side of the same coin is worse. You are also not factoring in that progressives tend to cluster in more progressive regions. This wasnt decided by the popular vote. One less progressive vote for Clinton in a solidly blue state wouldn't make any difference. But you seem to have the need to blame progressives for Clinton' God awful campaign. You also arent factoring in how the DNC were caught conspiring to rig the primaries. Sanders had his chance stolen, the corporate wing of the party won, but yet again, its the progressive community's fault.

Again, conservative democrats have been charting the course of the Democratic party for the last 40 years. But it always comes around to progressives "keeping their powder dry" and falling in line.