|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Bill Clinton deregulated Wall Street. That's a fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm–Leach–Bliley_Act
We had laws in place that prevented bank meltdowns for almost a century. They were repealed and bank meltdowns happened again. Bank meltdowns are not inevitable. They only happen if you allow them to happen. They only happen in certain countries under certain conditions.
Clinton is in bed with Wall Street more than any candidate in the race currently. In recent history, only Obama was more a serf for Wall Street than Clinton today.
As bad as a flat tax is for inequality, supporting Wall Street is worse.
And inequality in itself is not bad for the economy. Financial meltdowns are.
Let me put it another way. Rubio's rhetoric is on the left of Hillary&Bill's record. That the Clinton's rherotic isn't doesn't matter
|
On March 10 2016 02:05 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:Bill Clinton deregulated Wall Street. That's a fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm–Leach–Bliley_ActWe had laws in place that prevented bank meltdowns for almost a century. They were repealed and bank meltdowns happened again. Bank meltdowns are not inevitable. They only happen if you allow them to happen. Clinton is in bed with Wall Street more than any candidate in the race currently. In recent history, only Obama was more a serf for Wall Street than Clinton today. As bad as a flat tax is for inequality, supporting Wall Street is worse. And inequality in itself is not bad for the economy. Financial meltdowns are.
You linked to the wiki, did you happen to look at the vote margins on that bill? Even if Clinton wanted to stop it, it wouldn’t have happened.
The deregulation of the banks that took place since the 80s did to a lot of the problems we see today. Heaping solely at the feet of Clinton and the democrats is silly however. That bill was pushed through in a post Contract with America, Republican majority world. The Democrats likely couldn’t have stopped it if they wanted.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 10 2016 02:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 01:44 oneofthem wrote:On March 10 2016 01:43 xDaunt wrote:On March 10 2016 01:40 oneofthem wrote:On March 10 2016 01:31 xDaunt wrote:On March 10 2016 01:13 oneofthem wrote:
i posted a long thing on why this blind hate on 'free trade' and not distinguishing the situation circa 1994 to now is misguided. it's broadly similar to the wapo piece so don't really feel like rehashing it.
the geopolitical component is really important though. the TPP/TTIP does not reduce tariffs as much as it harmonizes regulation and establish the basic momentum of a global governance structure on trade. it puts our trade leverage in concrete terms and is really ameliorative of the specific problems seen in the trade with china and so on.
TPP in particular will steer supply chain (through the country of origin rules) and thus development to our allies in the pacific region. it is very important to the future of the region. And how much money should the US be spending (or losing, depending upon how you want to characterize it) to promote the geopolitical ends of these trade deals? That's the rub. it's not a 'cost' as in it can be prevented, unless you incur the cost of tariffs to rekt foreign competitors who can take advantage of lower cost manufacturing. the shifting of supply chain to lower cost countries is just not going to stop. you can shape the regulatory environment and steer the flow of trade one way or another, but to bring some of the processes to the u.s. is impractical. I don't think that anyone is suggesting that all processes be brought back to the US. But there is a strong suggestion that we shouldn't be constantly soaked by every trade deal that we enter into. with some of these places developing pretty soon there will be more of a balance of trade. look at the example of japan for example. what was once a deadly threat is now an important market and also supplier, making both countries much better off. it's not really a path independent problem. there is no easy 'reverse gear'. if there is anything for sanders to crusade against it's the concentration of firms and the multitude of barriers to entry for competition. How the hell can you claim that there's a balance of trade between the US and Japan? it's not a zero sum game.
what i meant by trade balance is where both countries get net benefit from the exchange. this is not reflected in the total amounts but in the nature and value of the trade, particularly complementary effect that make both countries better off. japan is one of our largest export markets, while components produced by japanese high precision manufacturing expands the productivity of industry worldwide and improve quality of american products. the composition of trade with japan is pretty high value (aerospace, IT, pharma). this kind of mutually beneficial trade is basically the best case scenario and the situation described by competitive advantage.
the trade deficit in goods is primarily in consumer products. but here with the cheaper yen japanese workers are essentially working super hard for american consumers.
but japan is one of the more protectionist places around, and they are partly suffering for it. when you protect domestic industry to the extent that japan does, they become uncompetitive, which in turn doubles down on the importance of protection to entrenched interests.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 10 2016 02:05 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:Bill Clinton deregulated Wall Street. That's a fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm–Leach–Bliley_ActWe had laws in place that prevented bank meltdowns for almost a century. They were repealed and bank meltdowns happened again. Bank meltdowns are not inevitable. They only happen if you allow them to happen. They only happen in certain countries under certain conditions. Clinton is in bed with Wall Street more than any candidate in the race currently. In recent history, only Obama was more a serf for Wall Street than Clinton today. As bad as a flat tax is for inequality, supporting Wall Street is worse. And inequality in itself is not bad for the economy. Financial meltdowns are. Let me put it another way. Rubio's rhetoric is on the left of Hillary&Bill's record. That the Clinton's rherotic isn't doesn't matter
you are simply ignorant about hillary's wall street regulatory effort or rubio, the most corporate astroturf candidate around. simply stop posting inaccurate information.
|
Everybody knows that the Clintons are the establishments.
If Clinton gets in the office, nothing will change. It is the status quo.
|
On March 10 2016 02:13 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 02:05 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:Bill Clinton deregulated Wall Street. That's a fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm–Leach–Bliley_ActWe had laws in place that prevented bank meltdowns for almost a century. They were repealed and bank meltdowns happened again. Bank meltdowns are not inevitable. They only happen if you allow them to happen. They only happen in certain countries under certain conditions. Clinton is in bed with Wall Street more than any candidate in the race currently. In recent history, only Obama was more a serf for Wall Street than Clinton today. As bad as a flat tax is for inequality, supporting Wall Street is worse. And inequality in itself is not bad for the economy. Financial meltdowns are. Let me put it another way. Rubio's rhetoric is on the left of Hillary&Bill's record. That the Clinton's rherotic isn't doesn't matter you are simply ignorant about hillary's wall street regulatory effort or rubio, the most corporate astroturf candidate around. simply stop posting inaccurate information.
You're like a comically pro-Hillary version of GH at this point.
I find it pretty amusing. Now all we need is a radically pro-Cruz poster to round out the bunch.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 10 2016 02:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 02:13 oneofthem wrote:On March 10 2016 02:05 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:Bill Clinton deregulated Wall Street. That's a fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm–Leach–Bliley_ActWe had laws in place that prevented bank meltdowns for almost a century. They were repealed and bank meltdowns happened again. Bank meltdowns are not inevitable. They only happen if you allow them to happen. They only happen in certain countries under certain conditions. Clinton is in bed with Wall Street more than any candidate in the race currently. In recent history, only Obama was more a serf for Wall Street than Clinton today. As bad as a flat tax is for inequality, supporting Wall Street is worse. And inequality in itself is not bad for the economy. Financial meltdowns are. Let me put it another way. Rubio's rhetoric is on the left of Hillary&Bill's record. That the Clinton's rherotic isn't doesn't matter you are simply ignorant about hillary's wall street regulatory effort or rubio, the most corporate astroturf candidate around. simply stop posting inaccurate information. You're like a comically pro-Hillary version of GH at this point. I find it pretty amusing. Now all we need is a radically pro-Cruz poster to round out the bunch.
you can read it for yourself.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/10/08/wall-street-work-for-main-street/
imposing control on compensation! higher reporting requirements! pretty horrifying stuff for wall street
|
Judging by the last 8 years the status quo is what Obama did, which the reps painted as communist Satan extreme left wing.
Kinda hilarious how even voters in America only use talking points and change them whenever its convenient.
|
Gary Gensler is HFA's CFO, and he was an ex-Goldman MD. Then he went to the Treasury, became head of the CFTC and spearheaded the LIBOR investigation. Wall Street reform is something Hillary takes seriously.
I used a lot of acronyms. If you care about financial reform you should know them. If not, read up about Gensler, the CFTC and how hard he fucked the banks (they deserved it).
|
What she says means nothing. She has a long long track record of saying exactly that which is political favorable to her.
If she is elected, and if it becomes opportune, she will repeal Dott Frank in a heartbeat. If during the campaign, it becomes opportune to attack Wall Street as hard as Sanders is, she will do it in heartbeat.
Just to give an example. Do you really believe Hillary has been anti-gay for almost all her life?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
a general point about trade and progressives, effective taxation increasingly need an international aspect, and not just with corporate forms but individuals too. if you want to effectively tax the moneybag you would need some international framework on tax, because socialism in one country makes for flighty capital. then there is the attendant trade and investment effects of taxation, and you need buy-in from places that would normally stand to gain by lowering their standards and allow a short plank to expose the whole u.s. effort. there are a lot of loopholes and shell game in this, completely legal too. but if you are looking to change this, you would need international buy-ins. cant do so with trade wars
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 10 2016 02:53 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:What she says means nothing. She has a long long track record of saying exactly that which is political favorable to her. If she is elected, and if it becomes opportune, she will repeal Dott Frank in a heartbeat.
literally why would you say this when rubio is entirely business funded while hillary is rather unpopular with bankers especially after getting gensler to run her wall street platform?
|
On March 10 2016 02:57 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 02:53 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:What she says means nothing. She has a long long track record of saying exactly that which is political favorable to her. If she is elected, and if it becomes opportune, she will repeal Dott Frank in a heartbeat. literally why would you say this when rubio is entirely business funded while hillary is rather unpopular with bankers especially after getting gensler to run her wall street platform?
Hillary will say whatever to win.
She have no moral compass.
|
Just as a remark: an international thread of politics watchers is probably not the best forum for convincing anyone to vote for your candidate.
|
On March 10 2016 02:53 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:Just to give an example. Do you really believe Hillary has been anti-gay for almost all her life?
Consider this: Bernie Sanders is the best living example of honesty and consistency. Going into Michigan, he needed to win by about 15-20% in order to stay in the race and not fall too far behind. Polls showed him down 20% and he ended up winning by 2%. This was seen as a huge victory for Sanders. However, a success for Sanders in this case isn't doing well. It was doing less terrible, still increasing Clinton's lead.
Clinton, on the other hand, plays it smart. She is the clear front runner. Bernie is celebrating how not convincingly he is losing. It doesn't pay to be Bernie.
|
On March 10 2016 02:57 oneofthem wrote:
literally why would you say this when rubio is entirely business funded while hillary is rather unpopular with bankers especially after getting gensler to run her wall street platform?
wut?
Hillary's defense on taking all that Wall Street money is that Obama took it too and that Obama took more than anyone ever.
She also says she admires Obama's policy in taking on Wall Street and that people should vote for her to make sure Obama's policies can be continued.
Hillary Clinton's career is intertwined with Wall Street. I bet she has a lot of personal friends that are wall street bankers/execs. She is part of it. When she has a party, a fund raiser or her daughter gets marred, guess who is invited.
If you tell me Rubio is taking their cash and will still be his own man, I can kind of see that in a way, though it is still unconvincing. I mean, can you really imagine Rubio at a Manhattan elite social event?
But even he, when he is president, will listen very carefully when a Wall Street exec calls him exactly because of that money. Buying a politician is a hell of an investment.
Even now that she has been harsher on Wall Street than before, to not have too stark a contract between her and Sanders, Wall Street still wants to fund her. Hmm, I guess why. Maybe they don't believe her either.
On March 10 2016 03:06 Mohdoo wrote:
Consider this: Bernie Sanders is the best living example of honesty and consistency. Going into Michigan, he needed to win by about 15-20% in order to stay in the race and not fall too far behind. Polls showed him down 20% and he ended up winning by 2%. This was seen as a huge victory for Sanders. However, a success for Sanders in this case isn't doing well. It was doing less terrible, still increasing Clinton's lead.
Clinton, on the other hand, plays it smart. She is the clear front runner. Bernie is celebrating how not convincingly he is losing. It doesn't pay to be Bernie.
Bernie never had a shot. The only reason he is running is because no one else wanted to. If Clinton literally had no opponent, it would be clear how much of a sham the party really is. And it would also have been bad for her chances in the general because more tv time means more votes and a tighter race means more tv time.
Not really sure why your post has my post quoted in it. For a second I considered the thought that you think telling me Sanders is going to lose is somehow an argument against what I am saying.
|
On March 10 2016 03:06 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 02:53 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:Just to give an example. Do you really believe Hillary has been anti-gay for almost all her life? Consider this: Bernie Sanders is the best living example of honesty and consistency. Going into Michigan, he needed to win by about 15-20% in order to stay in the race and not fall too far behind. Polls showed him down 20% and he ended up winning by 2%. This was seen as a huge victory for Sanders. However, a success for Sanders in this case isn't doing well. It was doing less terrible, still increasing Clinton's lead. Clinton, on the other hand, plays it smart. She is the clear front runner. Bernie is celebrating how not convincingly he is losing. It doesn't pay to be Bernie.
It does if Sanders cares more about the actual progress related to his platform than winning the election. Given his political history, it's pretty safe to assume that Sanders will be ok with having pulled Hillary to the left and forced a few wedge issues into her general platform.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
glass steagall didnt have the right regulations to stop the crisis, or the next one. it was for a different problem of conflict of interest in playing with depositor money.
|
On March 10 2016 03:11 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:
Not really sure why your post has my post quoted in it. For a second I considered the thought that you think telling me Sanders is going to lose is somehow an argument against what I am saying.
I quoted your post because you addressed the shittiness of Clinton's flip flopping on gay rights. My point is that someone who wasn't smart enough to flip flop on gay rights would not be able to build the resume Clinton has built. She has the power and sway she has now because of her decision making. Bernie overemphasized honesty and here he is now.
|
I agree. If you want a dishonest politician, vote Clinton.
The only reason dishonest politicians get more often is because we vote for them more often.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
