gunsnewing wrote:

Welpee wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:Do I think DT is some kind of white supremacist? I dont see anything in his life that he had any attacks against Jews Chinese Black Hispanic etc..

Does housing discrimination to keep Blacks from living in his buildings count as an attack against Blacks?

You mean in the late 70s when the Bronx and the rest of the Burroughs were was burning?

I dont normally post in these threads because threads like these expose some people who you may or may not like to talk sports with but...WOW....Some of your posts are down right ignorant!!!

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

arkrud wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

djsunyc wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:And whether DT is or is not a good President--Im sure most people are happy to shove it up the arse of many of these arrogant bastards at the very least.

This is what's called a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If you voted for, and/or justify the performance of the President out of spite - because you resent the perception that Democrats don't respect your intelligence, well then that's exactly why they're right not to.

Too bad--cry about it.

I'd suggest "President Trump: He's Incompetent But Makes Me Feel Better About Me" for his reelection slogan.

Its the crybaby mentality. I lost so now Im going to throw stones. Im sure Hillary wouldve been a fine President

i think what's been lost on you (and others) is that voting for trump was THE BIGGEST CRY BABY MOVE EVER.

Im sure there is a lot of people who would counter that having Hillary as President was not acceptable under almost any circumstance. From day 1 there was no building a government that could work together for common ground. Its like having two countries within one. Some of what trump says makes common sense. Ih he is leaning to far in a direction--then you find a common ground on negotiation. But from the Democratic side its been no before he took office. Thats unfortunate. I dont know one thing that he said was so far off base? Its mostly been about protectionism prosperity and safety.

Not like I agree with you on all counts but it is pointless to preach Judaism to Muslims... Wrong forum.
We should not remove the symbols of the past but erect the symbols of the past that were untold and forgotten because they were not feet with American exceptionalism and narratives that America never did anything wrong.
Time to make museums similar to Holocaust museums in Europe in former slave market buildings in the South, mark the places where black people were killed and erect the monuments for those who fight against slavery and segregation.
Just in front of General Lee statue.
Past cannot be removed by removing the monuments - it can only be brought back to the present.
Nation which forget its history has no future.

I don't feel threatened by Nazi/ skinhead. They are such a small part of society they don't matter. While this was unfortunate event-- more violence on a daily basis over drugs gangs et al that whole scene should've been a non event. First town should have done what it had to do to keep them out or to shut it down quickly. Secondly and I think where Trump Saturday comment come from-- those protestors came for violent scene(they came stocked with gear). There was culpability in their actions. If they don't protest-- no one gets hurt-- police get these arseholes out in 30 minutes. Why people giving kkk / nazi even one second of attention? Let cops do the job.

The protest was to bring awareness to how white people have been neglected and shamed for the past 17yrs especially under the Obama/Hillary administration. Calling it White supremists and racism without distinguishing it from white nationalism is yet another example of politians and the media misleading the sheep while sealing the all the facts and burying them deep below the swap vault. Instead of acknowledging the facts & opening it up to a long overdue discussion. A discussion that would abolish the swamp. Ending divide and conquer and essentially putting them all out of work and drastically altering their lifestyles

Guns, what you dont understand is that everybody suffered under Obama/Clinton but the very wealthy, who got back almost entirely all the gains from the recovery. People of color on the whole did worse because they had less to begin with.

What those marchers (and I guess you) are missing is that the Obama/Clinton idea of being multicultural wasn't about bringing opportunites to people of color who have been left behind in poor and middle class communities. It was about making the movers and shakers who have the largest say in how this country is run, who keep increasing the gap between the rich and everyone else, a beautiful multicultural rainbow.

You can point the fingers at the millions of people of color as part of the problem, but the truth is most of them were used like you, and other like minded people were. No point in blaming the pawns in this game. You do that and its a complete fail.

GTFOH!!! Obama wasn't about helping people of color, the poor and middle class? Are you trying to say that Obama was using the poor and minorities? You are spreading LIES and BS! The actual causes of inequality started before Obama. The SYSTEM of inequality was in place and exacerbated by the Great Recession which Obama did not cause.

"Turns out that the African-American community and Latino community were hit especially hard," Sanders said. "As I understand it, the African-American community lost half of their wealth as a result of the Wall Street collapse."

That claim stood out to us. Is it true that black wealth was slashed so dramatically as a result of the financial crisis?

Sanders understood correctly. His campaign referred us to a 2013 report from the National Association of Real Estate Brokers.

"According to the report, African-Americans have lost over half of their wealth since the beginning of the recession through falling homeownership rates and loss of jobs," it reads.

The report refers to Pew Research Center data from 2011 that shows the median net worth of black households decreased by 53 percent from $12,124 in 2005 to $5,677 in 2009. Technically, this loss fits the timeline of the housing crisis in 2006.

A 2014 Pew report more closely follows the financial crisis of 2007. According to that report, median net worth of the black household decreased from $19,200 in 2007 to $11,000 in 2013 (in 2013 dollars). That’s a loss of 43 percent.

Of course, the two economic crises are intertwined, and both Pew reports note that the housing bubble and the recession that followed "took a far greater toll on the wealth of minorities than whites."

Census Bureau data corroborates, if not magnifies, this point: Black median net worth decreased 61 percent from 2005 to 2009. Whites, in contrast, lost 21 percent of their wealth.

Our ruling

Sanders said, "The African-American community lost half of their wealth as a result of the Wall Street collapse."

Estimates for how much wealth blacks lost from 2005 to 2009 — as a result of the housing bubble — range from 53 percent to 61 percent. African-American net worth plummeted 43 percent from 2007 to 2013 — as a result of the financial crisis.

Because the two financial crises are inseparable, we won’t quibble with Sanders’ timeline. We rate his claim True.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/11/bernie-s/sanders-african-american-lost-half-their-wealth-be/

What bothers me about your reply is that Ive been tracing the roots of inequality for years now, had many discussions with you about this. You know damned well I am not suggesting that it started with Obama.

Obama had the most Wall Street friendly administration in US history. When you have just gotten through a period in our nation's history where we've seen fraud on a biblical scale, where millions of lives have been shattered. Thousands of suicides, an opiod epidemic in its wake. And your response is not to charge a single high ranking executive on Wall Street for said fraud, you are a big part of the problem.

When George W Bush prosecutes more corporate criminals than you do, you are part of the problem. When you have to go back more than 40 years to find someone who proscuted fewer executives, you are part of the problem. Those fines were a slap on the wrist and a green light to keep juicing the economy.

What regulation he has put in has been tepid, amd more in line with "moderate" republican thinking. At least used to be.

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.

Unlike Trump to be bulls***ing...

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

arkrud wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

djsunyc wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:And whether DT is or is not a good President--Im sure most people are happy to shove it up the arse of many of these arrogant bastards at the very least.

This is what's called a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If you voted for, and/or justify the performance of the President out of spite - because you resent the perception that Democrats don't respect your intelligence, well then that's exactly why they're right not to.

Too bad--cry about it.

I'd suggest "President Trump: He's Incompetent But Makes Me Feel Better About Me" for his reelection slogan.

Its the crybaby mentality. I lost so now Im going to throw stones. Im sure Hillary wouldve been a fine President

i think what's been lost on you (and others) is that voting for trump was THE BIGGEST CRY BABY MOVE EVER.

Im sure there is a lot of people who would counter that having Hillary as President was not acceptable under almost any circumstance. From day 1 there was no building a government that could work together for common ground. Its like having two countries within one. Some of what trump says makes common sense. Ih he is leaning to far in a direction--then you find a common ground on negotiation. But from the Democratic side its been no before he took office. Thats unfortunate. I dont know one thing that he said was so far off base? Its mostly been about protectionism prosperity and safety.

Not like I agree with you on all counts but it is pointless to preach Judaism to Muslims... Wrong forum.
We should not remove the symbols of the past but erect the symbols of the past that were untold and forgotten because they were not feet with American exceptionalism and narratives that America never did anything wrong.
Time to make museums similar to Holocaust museums in Europe in former slave market buildings in the South, mark the places where black people were killed and erect the monuments for those who fight against slavery and segregation.
Just in front of General Lee statue.
Past cannot be removed by removing the monuments - it can only be brought back to the present.
Nation which forget its history has no future.

I don't feel threatened by Nazi/ skinhead. They are such a small part of society they don't matter. While this was unfortunate event-- more violence on a daily basis over drugs gangs et al that whole scene should've been a non event. First town should have done what it had to do to keep them out or to shut it down quickly. Secondly and I think where Trump Saturday comment come from-- those protestors came for violent scene(they came stocked with gear). There was culpability in their actions. If they don't protest-- no one gets hurt-- police get these arseholes out in 30 minutes. Why people giving kkk / nazi even one second of attention? Let cops do the job.

The protest was to bring awareness to how white people have been neglected and shamed for the past 17yrs especially under the Obama/Hillary administration. Calling it White supremists and racism without distinguishing it from white nationalism is yet another example of politians and the media misleading the sheep while sealing the all the facts and burying them deep below the swap vault. Instead of acknowledging the facts & opening it up to a long overdue discussion. A discussion that would abolish the swamp. Ending divide and conquer and essentially putting them all out of work and drastically altering their lifestyles

Guns, what you dont understand is that everybody suffered under Obama/Clinton but the very wealthy, who got back almost entirely all the gains from the recovery. People of color on the whole did worse because they had less to begin with.

What those marchers (and I guess you) are missing is that the Obama/Clinton idea of being multicultural wasn't about bringing opportunites to people of color who have been left behind in poor and middle class communities. It was about making the movers and shakers who have the largest say in how this country is run, who keep increasing the gap between the rich and everyone else, a beautiful multicultural rainbow.

You can point the fingers at the millions of people of color as part of the problem, but the truth is most of them were used like you, and other like minded people were. No point in blaming the pawns in this game. You do that and its a complete fail.

GTFOH!!! Obama wasn't about helping people of color, the poor and middle class? Are you trying to say that Obama was using the poor and minorities? You are spreading LIES and BS! The actual causes of inequality started before Obama. The SYSTEM of inequality was in place and exacerbated by the Great Recession which Obama did not cause.

"Turns out that the African-American community and Latino community were hit especially hard," Sanders said. "As I understand it, the African-American community lost half of their wealth as a result of the Wall Street collapse."

That claim stood out to us. Is it true that black wealth was slashed so dramatically as a result of the financial crisis?

Sanders understood correctly. His campaign referred us to a 2013 report from the National Association of Real Estate Brokers.

"According to the report, African-Americans have lost over half of their wealth since the beginning of the recession through falling homeownership rates and loss of jobs," it reads.

The report refers to Pew Research Center data from 2011 that shows the median net worth of black households decreased by 53 percent from $12,124 in 2005 to $5,677 in 2009. Technically, this loss fits the timeline of the housing crisis in 2006.

A 2014 Pew report more closely follows the financial crisis of 2007. According to that report, median net worth of the black household decreased from $19,200 in 2007 to $11,000 in 2013 (in 2013 dollars). That’s a loss of 43 percent.

Of course, the two economic crises are intertwined, and both Pew reports note that the housing bubble and the recession that followed "took a far greater toll on the wealth of minorities than whites."

Census Bureau data corroborates, if not magnifies, this point: Black median net worth decreased 61 percent from 2005 to 2009. Whites, in contrast, lost 21 percent of their wealth.

Our ruling

Sanders said, "The African-American community lost half of their wealth as a result of the Wall Street collapse."

Estimates for how much wealth blacks lost from 2005 to 2009 — as a result of the housing bubble — range from 53 percent to 61 percent. African-American net worth plummeted 43 percent from 2007 to 2013 — as a result of the financial crisis.

Because the two financial crises are inseparable, we won’t quibble with Sanders’ timeline. We rate his claim True.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/11/bernie-s/sanders-african-american-lost-half-their-wealth-be/

What bothers me about your reply is that Ive been tracing the roots of inequality for years now, had many discussions with you about this. You know damned well I am not suggesting that it started with Obama.

Obama had the most Wall Street friendly administration in US history. When you have just gotten through a period in our nation's history where we've seen fraud on a biblical scale, where millions of lives have been shattered. Thousands of suicides, an opiod epidemic in its wake. And your response is not to charge a single high ranking executive on Wall Street for said fraud, you are a big part of the problem.

When George W Bush prosecutes more corporate criminals than you do, you are part of the problem. When you have to go back more than 40 years to find someone who proscuted fewer executives, you are part of the problem. Those fines were a slap on the wrist and a green light to keep juicing the economy.

What regulation he has put in has been tepid, amd more in line with "moderate" republican thinking. At least used to be.

You've skipped RIGHT OVER the Republicans as if they've played no part in legislation over the last 20 years. Prosecuting Executives is NOT the end all be all solution you think it is. You think jailing a few Wall Street Execs would do anything? They'll be replaced immediately with someone else. Lifting the Poor and Middle Class is not a Republican Priority.

We didn't get here by accident and there is no SIMPLE solution to the Inequality Gap and exploding CEO Compensation. The Rich are the ones lobbying to make laws that favor them and push profits to the top. Wages being increased have mostly been opposed by Republicans. Outside of the Federal Government much of the country is run by Republicans.

You make it sound like they're Marines. These guys dont want to go to jail, their whole life is about comfort. Its called a deterrence.

After the S&L crisis of the early 90s, thousands of Bankers were perp walked, jailed, and it restored faith in the banking system, and curbed that type of behavior. No one went to jail this time, and the conditions that caused the last crash are still in place because there is no deterrence.

Im not arguing with your contention that republicans played a big part in being where we are today. Again, how many times have I mentioned that?

What I strongly disagree with is you arguing that this could have been done without the complicity of corporate democrats. The biggest pieces of legislation that stripped away regulations, that turned Wall Street into a casino, happened during democratic administrations, because there wasnt the brake that the democratic party usually gave to policies that hurt the poor and middle class. Thats how Wall Street was able to push through massive deregulation under Bill Clinton.

GustavBahler wrote:

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

arkrud wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

djsunyc wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:And whether DT is or is not a good President--Im sure most people are happy to shove it up the arse of many of these arrogant bastards at the very least.

This is what's called a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If you voted for, and/or justify the performance of the President out of spite - because you resent the perception that Democrats don't respect your intelligence, well then that's exactly why they're right not to.

Too bad--cry about it.

I'd suggest "President Trump: He's Incompetent But Makes Me Feel Better About Me" for his reelection slogan.

Its the crybaby mentality. I lost so now Im going to throw stones. Im sure Hillary wouldve been a fine President

i think what's been lost on you (and others) is that voting for trump was THE BIGGEST CRY BABY MOVE EVER.

Im sure there is a lot of people who would counter that having Hillary as President was not acceptable under almost any circumstance. From day 1 there was no building a government that could work together for common ground. Its like having two countries within one. Some of what trump says makes common sense. Ih he is leaning to far in a direction--then you find a common ground on negotiation. But from the Democratic side its been no before he took office. Thats unfortunate. I dont know one thing that he said was so far off base? Its mostly been about protectionism prosperity and safety.

Not like I agree with you on all counts but it is pointless to preach Judaism to Muslims... Wrong forum.
We should not remove the symbols of the past but erect the symbols of the past that were untold and forgotten because they were not feet with American exceptionalism and narratives that America never did anything wrong.
Time to make museums similar to Holocaust museums in Europe in former slave market buildings in the South, mark the places where black people were killed and erect the monuments for those who fight against slavery and segregation.
Just in front of General Lee statue.
Past cannot be removed by removing the monuments - it can only be brought back to the present.
Nation which forget its history has no future.

I don't feel threatened by Nazi/ skinhead. They are such a small part of society they don't matter. While this was unfortunate event-- more violence on a daily basis over drugs gangs et al that whole scene should've been a non event. First town should have done what it had to do to keep them out or to shut it down quickly. Secondly and I think where Trump Saturday comment come from-- those protestors came for violent scene(they came stocked with gear). There was culpability in their actions. If they don't protest-- no one gets hurt-- police get these arseholes out in 30 minutes. Why people giving kkk / nazi even one second of attention? Let cops do the job.

The protest was to bring awareness to how white people have been neglected and shamed for the past 17yrs especially under the Obama/Hillary administration. Calling it White supremists and racism without distinguishing it from white nationalism is yet another example of politians and the media misleading the sheep while sealing the all the facts and burying them deep below the swap vault. Instead of acknowledging the facts & opening it up to a long overdue discussion. A discussion that would abolish the swamp. Ending divide and conquer and essentially putting them all out of work and drastically altering their lifestyles

Guns, what you dont understand is that everybody suffered under Obama/Clinton but the very wealthy, who got back almost entirely all the gains from the recovery. People of color on the whole did worse because they had less to begin with.

What those marchers (and I guess you) are missing is that the Obama/Clinton idea of being multicultural wasn't about bringing opportunites to people of color who have been left behind in poor and middle class communities. It was about making the movers and shakers who have the largest say in how this country is run, who keep increasing the gap between the rich and everyone else, a beautiful multicultural rainbow.

You can point the fingers at the millions of people of color as part of the problem, but the truth is most of them were used like you, and other like minded people were. No point in blaming the pawns in this game. You do that and its a complete fail.

GTFOH!!! Obama wasn't about helping people of color, the poor and middle class? Are you trying to say that Obama was using the poor and minorities? You are spreading LIES and BS! The actual causes of inequality started before Obama. The SYSTEM of inequality was in place and exacerbated by the Great Recession which Obama did not cause.

"Turns out that the African-American community and Latino community were hit especially hard," Sanders said. "As I understand it, the African-American community lost half of their wealth as a result of the Wall Street collapse."

That claim stood out to us. Is it true that black wealth was slashed so dramatically as a result of the financial crisis?

Sanders understood correctly. His campaign referred us to a 2013 report from the National Association of Real Estate Brokers.

"According to the report, African-Americans have lost over half of their wealth since the beginning of the recession through falling homeownership rates and loss of jobs," it reads.

The report refers to Pew Research Center data from 2011 that shows the median net worth of black households decreased by 53 percent from $12,124 in 2005 to $5,677 in 2009. Technically, this loss fits the timeline of the housing crisis in 2006.

A 2014 Pew report more closely follows the financial crisis of 2007. According to that report, median net worth of the black household decreased from $19,200 in 2007 to $11,000 in 2013 (in 2013 dollars). That’s a loss of 43 percent.

Of course, the two economic crises are intertwined, and both Pew reports note that the housing bubble and the recession that followed "took a far greater toll on the wealth of minorities than whites."

Census Bureau data corroborates, if not magnifies, this point: Black median net worth decreased 61 percent from 2005 to 2009. Whites, in contrast, lost 21 percent of their wealth.

Our ruling

Sanders said, "The African-American community lost half of their wealth as a result of the Wall Street collapse."

Estimates for how much wealth blacks lost from 2005 to 2009 — as a result of the housing bubble — range from 53 percent to 61 percent. African-American net worth plummeted 43 percent from 2007 to 2013 — as a result of the financial crisis.

Because the two financial crises are inseparable, we won’t quibble with Sanders’ timeline. We rate his claim True.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/11/bernie-s/sanders-african-american-lost-half-their-wealth-be/

What bothers me about your reply is that Ive been tracing the roots of inequality for years now, had many discussions with you about this. You know damned well I am not suggesting that it started with Obama.

Obama had the most Wall Street friendly administration in US history. When you have just gotten through a period in our nation's history where we've seen fraud on a biblical scale, where millions of lives have been shattered. Thousands of suicides, an opiod epidemic in its wake. And your response is not to charge a single high ranking executive on Wall Street for said fraud, you are a big part of the problem.

When George W Bush prosecutes more corporate criminals than you do, you are part of the problem. When you have to go back more than 40 years to find someone who proscuted fewer executives, you are part of the problem. Those fines were a slap on the wrist and a green light to keep juicing the economy.

What regulation he has put in has been tepid, amd more in line with "moderate" republican thinking. At least used to be.

This is accurate. Centrists have done nothing to make the economy better, and like you said Obama and Democrats are culpable for bankers not bedding taken to tall for their misdeeds. Having said that s lot of stuff that happened leading up to the meltdown want illegal, prosecuting them would have accomplished little.

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 fascists 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.

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?

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......

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!

To sum things up, Im not arguing that jaling those executives would have financially helped at the time. I am arguing that it would have reached some important benchmarks. It would have told the American people that it wasnt business as usual anymore. Which would have also shown voters that Democrats had their back. That no one will get away with something like this again. That didnt happen, and the result was the worst midterm losses in over a hundred years. The result is business as usual in corporate America. Thats the enemy of good. Not the institution itself, but the notion that the right way to make money is treating the economy like one big casino.

Not going to explain why someone else didn't vote for Clinton (or Trump), I will say it goes well beyond the economy, and her track record in government. Blaming progressives, who have little to no power in government to say that they are responsible for who gets elected president of the United States is weak, very weak.

Its like blaming the customer for not eating the **** sandwhich they were presented with, instead of blaming the chef. The Clinton's policies have been a disaster, in particular for the AA community. The Crime Bill, Welfare reform, deregulation, we are living through the results.

I don't believe you caught the many former Obama voters who went to Trump to help give him the win. Thats how bad a candidate she was. So bad her running mate was quoted as saying as much. Biden would know.

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler 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!

To sum things up, Im not arguing that jaling those executives would have financially helped at the time. I am arguing that it would have reached some important benchmarks. It would have told the American people that it wasnt business as usual anymore. Which would have also shown voters that Democrats had their back. That no one will get away with something like this again. That didnt happen, and the result was the worst midterm losses in over a hundred years. The result is business as usual in corporate America. Thats the enemy of good. Not the institution itself, but the notion that the right way to make money is treating the economy like one big casino.

Not going to explain why someone else didn't vote for Clinton (or Trump), I will say it goes well beyond the economy, and her track record in government. Blaming progressives, who have little to no power in government to say that they are responsible for who gets elected president of the United States is weak, very weak.

Its like blaming the customer for not eating the **** sandwhich they were presented with, instead of blaming the chef. The Clinton's policies have been a disaster, in particular for the AA community. The Crime Bill, Welfare reform, deregulation, we are living through the results.

I don't believe you caught the many former Obama voters who went to Trump to help give him the win. Thats how bad a candidate she was. So bad her running mate was quoted as saying as much. Biden would know.

I think I hold Voters to a HIGHER standard. I believe they should be smart enough to know that as flawed as Hillary may be she was CLEARLY LIGHT YEARS better than Trump. If you voted for Obama and then basically ERASED that by voting for Trump over Hillary then God help them cuz they have to live with that.

I don't wanna hear this PURIST BS when you have that kind of choice in front of you. ALSO voting in the Republicans in Congress at the same time as voting for Trump is unforgivable given their track record. What exactly do you think is the argument for Trump over Hillary or a Republican Congress versus a Democratic one? There was enough time and debate to make it clear that Trump was UNFIT and should never have been allowed to be within a mile of the White House!!! Yeah but I guess those Jill Stein voters really showed us. FOH!!!

I dont consider avoiding World War III to be a "purist" position. You obviously have no idea how Hawkish Clinton is, the bat**** crazy ideas she promoted, like a no fly zone over Syria, which could easily have triggered a full blown war with Russia. Her use of neo-nazis to help overthrow the Ukrainian govt. Her hand in a coup that overthrew a democratically elected govt. in Honduras.

She then refused admission in the US for the orphan refugee children who were caught up in that war. Clinton was the "point man" on the toppling of Gadaffi which gave ISIS their own country. She did that stuff out of the ****ing State Department, not the CIA, not the Pentagon. Was not looking forward to what she would do with even more power.

Now you tell me all these concerns are just a case of being "purist", more like a case of you being purile. The democratic party has been owned by big business for the last 40 years, all the finger pointing in the world wont change that. Goodnight.