EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3544
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24143 Posts
| ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
Daily News: Okay. Well, let's assume that you're correct on that point [that the banks have too much power and need to be disempowered]. How do you go about doing it? Sanders: How you go about doing it is having legislation passed, or giving the authority to the secretary of treasury to determine, under Dodd-Frank, that these banks are a danger to the economy over the problem of too-big-to-fail. Daily News: But do you think that the Fed, now, has that authority? Sanders: Well, I don't know if the Fed has it. But I think the administration can have it. Daily News: How? How does a President turn to JPMorgan Chase, or have the Treasury turn to any of those banks and say, "Now you must do X, Y, and Z?" Sanders: Well, you do have authority under the Dodd-Frank legislation to do that, make that determination. Daily News: You do, just by Federal Reserve fiat, you do? Sanders: Yeah. Well, I believe you do. Daily News: So if you look forward, a year, maybe two years, right now you have... JPMorgan has 241,000 employees. About 20,000 of them in New York. $192 billion in net assets. What happens? What do you foresee? What is JPMorgan in year two of... Sanders: What I foresee is a stronger national economy. And, in fact, a stronger economy in New York State, as well. What I foresee is a financial system which actually makes affordable loans to small and medium-size businesses. Does not live as an island onto themselves concerned about their own profits. And, in fact, creating incredibly complicated financial tools, which have led us into the worst economic recession in the modern history of the United States. Daily News: I get that point. I'm just looking at the method because, actions have reactions, right? There are pluses and minuses. So, if you push here, you may get an unintended consequence that you don't understand. So, what I'm asking is, how can we understand? If you look at JPMorgan just as an example, or you can do Citibank, or Bank of America. What would it be? What would that institution be? Would there be a consumer bank? Where would the investing go? Sanders: I'm not running JPMorgan Chase or Citibank. Daily News: No. But you'd be breaking it up. Sanders: That's right. And that is their decision as to what they want to do and how they want to reconfigure themselves. That's not my decision. [...] Daily News: [...] And, I'm a little bit confused because just a few minutes ago you said the U.S. President would have authority to order... Sanders: No, I did not say we would order. I did not say that we would order. The President is not a dictator. Daily News: Okay. You would then leave it to JPMorgan Chase or the others to figure out how to break it, themselves up. I'm not quite... Sanders: You would determine is that, if a bank is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. And then you have the secretary of treasury and some people who know a lot about this, making that determination. If the determination is that Goldman Sachs or JPMorgan Chase is too big to fail, yes, they will be broken up. Daily News: Okay. You saw, I guess, what happened with Metropolitan Life. There was an attempt to bring them under the financial regulatory scheme, and the court said no. And what does that presage for your program? Sanders: It's something I have not studied, honestly, the legal implications of that. Source | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10924 Posts
Do you actually realise what you want, in a short interview, from him? Asking Hillary, foreign politics expert, to explain how she would fix the middle east in detail, in 4-5 Sentences or less, would be about as fair. Btw. Isn't he basically saying this in the interview: Pass (or use) a law that defines how big (and so on) Banks are allowed to be/get. Have the Banks follow the law (they would have to do the split themselves). Sounds simple and possible enough? | ||
|
SpiritoftheTunA
United States20903 Posts
| ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
Kwizach is right though, Hillary would have a much better answer to those questions. Interviewer: "Okay. Well, let's assume that you're correct on that point [that the banks have too much power and need to be disempowered]. How do you go about doing it?" Hillary option A: "I sure as fuck ain't gonna!" Hillary option B: "I'm gonna give em a stern talkin to but we don't really need to change anything ever. They'll fix it themselves!" Hillary option C: "Am I being paid for this interview?" | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
| ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
he is right to defer to experts to determine this stuff, but the experts do not agree with him :/ | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
| ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On April 05 2016 19:23 kwizach wrote: I'd expect him to at least have some form of knowledge of what can legally and practically be done with regards to one of the highest priorities his entire campaign is built around, yes. "How do you go about implementing what you want to do" should not be the kind of question where you reveal you have not looked into the matter. It isn't even remotely similar to "how do you fix the Middle East in four sentences or less". Talk about a false equivalence. One, not a false equivalency, as we are talking about problems of about equal complexity. The financial monopoly even has a greater degree of uncertainty than the middle east, which we have evidence, performed trials and have many predictions outcomes for. Two, you would only expect that of Bernie because you're by omission saying that Hillary couldn't answer either question (with good reason, they're government level problems, not problems that can be solved by one person or one small group of people working independently). Besides, I can answer that interviewer's question for Bernie in four WORDS or less: Combine NSA & FDIC! Also this is pretty funny: “From our standpoint, I want them debating every day,” Wasserman Schultz said of the Democrats, in an attempt to counter the conventional wisdom. “And I bet my counterpart, Reince Priebus, wants [the GOP candidates] to debate never. Because every time they open their mouth, they do something to alienate somebody else." Source Suuuuuuuure You want lots of debates which is why you decided to have far less debates than the last time that hillary lost! Republicans are bad which is why they debate less(except for the fact that they had far more debates before the primary and have had far more debates during the primary). Suuure good answer bro | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
edit: by the way, talking about the Middle East: Daily News: Do you support the Palestinian leadership's attempt to use the International Criminal Court to litigate some of these issues to establish that, in their view, Israel had committed essentially war crimes? Sanders: No. Daily News: Why not? Sanders: Why not? Daily News: Why not, why it... Sanders: Look, why don't I support a million things in the world? I'm just telling you that I happen to believe...anybody help me out here, because I don't remember the figures, but my recollection is over 10,000 innocent people were killed in Gaza. Does that sound right? He simply has no actual answer to the ICC question. I know foreign policy is not something he's very interested in, but he's running to be president of the United States. He should have made some attempt to study these issues. | ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On April 05 2016 19:43 kwizach wrote: It is absolutely a false equivalency. If you seriously believe that explaining how you would implement your own proposal about financial institutions being "too big to fail" is as difficult to answer as "how do you fix the Middle East", either you're living in a parallel universe or you're just not being honest. If Hillary had listed "fix the Middle East" in her platform, I'd expect her to know how to answer the question "how are you going to do that?". With regards to her actual policy proposals, she has not had any trouble explaining them. ![[image loading]](https://m.hrc.onl/images/1-strong-growth.focus-none.width-800.png) She has several little blurbs on these that are just as vague. I wonder what she's actually going to do? We get that she's good at saying a bunch of nothing and then giving subtle indications that it is time to applaud. She is infinitely better than Jeb as a speaker. Unfortunately she wants to do very little. She says she wants minor cuts on taxes for the middle class. She says she wants to add tiny taxes to the rich! On top of that she says she's going to raise the min wage, make state colleges free, free preschool, create a mystical science bank, and make millions of jobs while she's doing it! She should probably specify whether she abolishing the military or social security to pay for it though, cuz that shit's spensive. The most glaring statement she makes, however, is that she is going to raise participation in the workforce. Also while doing so she'll increase female participation! Truly an amazing feat to boast about, but she certainly doesn't say how she'll do something that seems empirically impossible when you look at a historically dwindling job market in the united states. She also said she gonner do comprehensive immigration reform. No date yet as to when she has a plan for that but that's fine. Edit: What's Hillary going to do to keep Russia from taking Crimea? Aw shucks To be fair it's not really her fault. She accidentally sent her strongly worded email from her personal account. Ended up in Putin's spam folder. Tragedy really. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 05 2016 14:50 Ravianna26 wrote: You're joking right? He signed a bill into law, the ACA, that no Republican voted for, destroying any chance he had of uniting the country. The Democrats had a super majority in both houses, the Republicans could all vote against it without risk. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24143 Posts
On April 05 2016 20:23 kwizach wrote: The page on her website from which your image is taken features several links explaining the details of her proposals -- feel free to read them. I'm not sure how your post is supposed to establish that Hillary would have as much trouble explaining her own proposals as Sanders, though. Apparently we're not even talking about Sanders anymore -- the deflection is real. From the person who's totally ignoring the question about Hillary's role in pushing for the Panama Trade deal. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
 If you guys would like, I can give you a quick intro into FDA's, ISDS and international arbitration as a whole as a grounder, though. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On April 05 2016 20:24 GreenHorizons wrote: From the person who's totally ignoring the question about Hillary's role in pushing for the Panama Trade deal. If I had replied to your post by writing "BUT HOW IS BERNIE GOING TO FIX WORLD HUNGER", which is the equivalent of Jormundr's response, then you'd have been right in calling me out for ignoring the topic being discussed. I'm sorry the thread doesn't gravitate around your posts, GH -- if someone doesn't reply to you, it doesn't mean they're desperately dodging your contributions. With regards to the Panama Trade deal that Bush negotiated, that Obama pushed for (after a few revisions) along with the South Korea and Columbia trade deals, and that Hillary supported as well, feel free to ask a specific question. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24143 Posts
On April 05 2016 20:39 kwizach wrote: If I had replied to your post by writing "BUT HOW IS BERNIE GOING TO FIX WORLD HUNGER", which is the equivalent of Jormundr's response, then you'd have been right in calling me out for ignoring the topic being discussed. I'm sorry the thread doesn't gravitate around your posts, GH -- if someone doesn't reply to you, it doesn't mean they're desperately dodging your contributions. With regards to the Panama Trade deal that Bush negotiated, that Obama pushed for (after a few revisions) along with the South Korea and Columbia trade deals, and that Hillary supported as well, feel free to ask a specific question. Why didn't she listen to Bernie? | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18382 Posts
I'm not allowed to post Calimero anymore, but you really make it hard. Excellent deflection away from that awkward interview where Bernie seems to show he has no actual ideas on how to implement his most prominent policy beyond pass the law to break up banks, which isn't his job, but congress' s. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24143 Posts
On April 05 2016 21:24 Acrofales wrote: I'm not allowed to post Calimero anymore, but you really make it hard. Excellent deflection away from that awkward interview where Bernie seems to show he has no actual ideas on how to implement his most prominent policy beyond pass the law to break up banks, which isn't his job, but congress' s. You realize I asked my question before he posted that right? The answer to my question seems to be "change the subject". As for the interview I feel like it was answered more or less. I'm not sure what details folks are expecting? It would of been like asking Nixon how he would break up the Bell company "How many companies would they be broken into" it's a dumb question as several of them in that interview were. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the ibt story reads, panama deal worsened tax evasion etc enforcement methods. this is not true for two reasons. first, as the original lobbyist report acknowledges, the 2012 agreement is an update to an earlier agreement with STRONGER provisions against abuse, they merely challenge how strong and effective these preambulatory languages are without specific statutory content. this is a valid concern and should be looked into in the future. second reason is that the US is itself a vast secrecy jurisdiction with some states that have better laws than you'd need, say de or nv. the u.s. reporting requirements on overseas asset ownership is also onerous enough to serve as enforcement without having it in the fpa. what the panama deal opponents are concerned about is really an actual u.s. company registering in panama and then using the ISDS to sue the u.s., but there are provisions again, acknowledged by the antitrade report, that it would not provide extra rights not available to u.s. investors under a dmoestic corporate entity. here's the actual source report cited http://www.citizen.org/documents/may-2007-preamble-change-fails-to-resolve-concerns-with-fta-investment-rules.pdf here's the ustr advisory report on financial services https://ustr.gov/archive/assets/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/Panama_FTA/Reports/asset_upload_file130_11239.pdf generally without any trade agreements panamanian corps would still have protection under US courts, perhaps protection stronger than ISDS which has pretty strict carved out territories for state regulatory immunity. but with a trade agreement there is some way for u.s. to influence panama policy to get some more transparency rules, and this is the strategy in the 2012 panama fta. | ||
| ||
